arguing that the immigration judge and be i erred in denying mr us over the relief under the convention against torture and in ruling that he did not qualify for an exception from the one you're filing requirement or as the cylon application content is that aside by the administration of electroconvulsive therapy and the national psychiatric hospital in el salvador where virtually the only institution of able to substantially treat patients with mental illnesses including is proven that by his mother's testimony where she was found to be credible that she would be likely to be indigent and not have familial support saying that his aunt would be unavailable to provide protection for him if he was in el salvador further on the streets he would be it is more likely than not that he would base you would interact with the police based on his condition and based on his erratic behavior especially when you consider the evidence that  finished i didn't mean it around and then finally once from the police interaction he would be he would be admitted into the forensic unit where he where he would be treated with ease he the problem that i have with this particular situation is the standard or review and it is substantial evidence review here right torture for instance it seems to me that the leg as st as new casey is pretty good pretty good precedent for the idea that the conditions that one has in a given country does not prove that there is any of fischler private person who has necessary specific and they have to inflict the suffering upon the patients so i don't know why that wouldn't be well in fact that's exactly what the b i said they said the conditions were not created with an intent but rather reflect the difficulties inherited addressing the if my standard or view is substantial evidence i'm thinking there is stansell evidence is saying what the b i said there i believe that there there is there is evidence in the record that specific intent is present when considering the unnecessary infliction of e c g and the manner in which it is and ministered in the national psychiatric hospital work with and what evidence is there to speak to what their personal intent may be the personal intent is demonstrated when we consider that dr nichols testimony that the employee is themselves when interviewed said that they bypassed any sort of consent protocol the consent which is very crucial to understanding and globally recognized as being a very important part of properly and correctly and ministering they completely bypass that and say that they don't ask because they know that they know that the patients will refuse because it is a very invasive it is a very painful procedure and virtually has no no response to that especially the group interact with one another we see that the group satisfies a particularly requirement and intellectual disability is a recognised mental illness was an established medical definition an cut diagnosis provides definable boundaries which create a clear benchmark for determining who falls within the group additionally an intellectual disability difference of varying levels does not make the group overbroad because ignored the specific diagnosis of that analysis in their in their approach i mean that they just were talking in general about  disability or about mental illness they didn't really focus in on the specific diagnosis but d s m five which if you focus in on  behavior in the page five of the record i understand that but i'm trying to say i mean you can target about mental illness ims in total and you can say there's no particular but if you have to focus in on d s m five it seems to me at that point particularities might go out the window and so i said to myself i think they might have erred yes we let me change the emphasis just a little bit it seems to me that one of the things that i don't know whether i really can think we can deal with is that the bigger a did not even let i j talk about group true which is in the general salvadoran man lacking for many years or suffering from severe mental disabilities and exhibiting the hairy bizarre behavior they fact they were not just the components of those groups were vastly different and if we look at the of other people that tell us that we have to look at the group as a whole essentially to be aided with piecemeal these different groups and say that they were they were encompassed by one another when they were not and i was in error from the b i r it was the difference between the two groups yes so our current group is el salvadorian men with intellectual disabilities exhibit erratic behavior and the alternative group was indigent suffering from severe mental disabilities and it is a very bizarre behavior the nd group did not mention intellectual disability and had a number of other components that were never discussed in the lower decisions as most of the analysis focused on intellectual disability mark i want to touch on a social distinction requirement before the end of my time i would like to point out that there are a number of factors that are highly relevant when we're looking at sort of distinction they are whether there is an existence of social stigma within the respective society whether the society and tragical able to individuals within the group and whether there are the existence of laws or social programs that target the group whether those programs are  seems to have come from the agency itself or the consultant retained by the agency this is an intellectual built disability in a in a generic colloquial sense this is a specific diagnosis under the  m five and that has definitions that has boundaries and it appears to me that the agency neither the i j a or the b i ever talked about that is not a problem technological there years but i don't want to just let that said you just recited what was the agency said but the agency is treating intellectual disability in a very lazy fashion and we have specific diagnosis so i don't think it's accurate to say that the agency concluded that could cover a range of possibilities it doesn't we have a specific diagnosis that diagnosis is tied to  particular characteristics the agency doesn't talk about that it all assumes that that kind of limitation isn't there isn't that a problem may ask you a couple other questions it seems to me that the be a b i did not even address the idea that the petitioner's diagnosis did not warn exception to the one year bar further where did they discuss the nd social group and how is it i know where they discussed it they said is never considered by j but we're you let me just jump in because i mean i think judge smith on to something that they couldn't even do it but it's not intuitive to me that even if they could that the fact that as we heard already the differences between the two classes do seem to be distinct the indigency requirement the lacking of tamil your support and the fact that it would have to be severe those all seem to be relevant factors that may go to some of the arguments that they're making about how likely it is that that he would be subject to persecution when he goes back to if he were sent back to el salvador question was more fundamental do you agree that those are not two distinct classes and whether or not set aside the question of whether either should be recognized don't you don't you think that the nd class covers different individuals and a different group than the st class are you do you buy the argument that they just rolled in the same thing couldn't make the determination at all that's exactly i j asked to make and that's something if the convict terminations they should be making any more than i should make it on the th circuit which the government would not me he would not want me to start making that determination that's my cue that's my concern representing his own interests which he knew wasn't done a fison as having intellectual functioning of problem to a seven year old which is consistent with his general mental abilities is there throughout this evaluation i don't know if you've ever been the parent of a seven year old but i've had enough experience with seven year olds to be pretty confident that you don't want to send people like that out in the world by themselves and i say that mostly because you can tell which way the wind is blowing here really wonder if the agency should re examine its position on this case all together it's not just sympathetic as your knowledge at the outset a seven year old mean really is there anything you can offer that gives us confidence that somebody like that could cope is sent back as the agency proposes to do judge clifton's last questions that is last plea to you i hope you are listening very carefully and i hope you take that back to your boss because to be fair all of these in my mind failures of the b i v in making their decisions will send this back but it doesn't solve the problem and that's why i personally am appealing to you to think very carefully about what judge clifton questioned you about as you address this case in the future and future cases i have no outs already to do that i'm just trying to get you to think about that and you don't you're all wrong and you don't need to respond i just wanted you to know that he's not the only one who worries about that particular issue organization as well as addressing concerns from the un human rights council and people with disabilities and that that the recommend uniform recommendation of easy cheap should only be