that occurred to him which he asserted was by the police and his wife was told also that the police were involved in double slaying they knocked on the door and they said it's the police said that they weren't police the question is what does he mean by that when he says that because he does say several other times in his testimony that they were police and then they threaten him when they tell him not to call the police ever says that this was a ruse to get me in the door i think other people said that for him because in several other places previously when he was talking to integration officers and in his testimony he says  that they were police and also by the by the way that he expresses himself in the simple ways that he does it it appears very well mean that he said they were police because they weren't wearing police uniforms not the fact that they were actually police any case they were in league with the police that's accept on the record and so i mean that's that's as far as i really think counted on  any case and we know that they were in league with the police on his wife's of that they will leave with the police and that's what he told the immigration judge and the immigration officers that don't call the police because we're all part of this together so comes to court there's a mexican case that finds that returning to your being afraid to return to your country after coming to the united states is not a particular social  bark and the immediate g and other cases and the circuit as well to remove that either except now that what happens in mexico isn't true for guatemala because we have to look at saying again what might be true in one country is not true another mexico isn't one of the case should be right reminded back to the board and a minimum so that and then of course to the immigration judge to to make a new returned from the united states in are there by perceive does the trouble in this case is all that all this new stuff about the country particular all came about after his case and evolution so he didn't make that showing he did not met please the court my name is kate alabama i'm here for the government today and i'm of course prepared to answer any questions about the case that you have including the asylum claim but i what i'd like to start with the cat claim i thought that would be more important to cover with some thoroughness the reg provides for protection for applicants under the torture convention when future torture is more likely than not and numerous factors go into making that determination including most importantly the past torture under the applicable regulation the petitioner bears the burden of proof and factual findings by the agency must be upheld unless a contrary conclusion is compelled so to be torture there must either be state action or there must be acquiescence by the state and the most important point i'd like to make today is that this is not a state actor case we call this the relocation issue is the way that we would look at it but the i g did reach the issue and unfortunately we didn't present that issue that came that issue in our brief we would be happy to address it and supplemental briefing but we don't think we need to because we think that the board decision is good based on the on the holding that there's no state action and there's there's no showing of acquiescence right so i guess again i gather your position is there's misallocation of bird well i think that the i'm not sure it's relevant because actually the i j a found that on the relocation issue based on what was in the record that  misplaced in this case and a lot of maldonado if it if it were that doesn't necessarily mean you lose but but i i'm just trying to get through the threshold question and then you can argue why it doesn't matter i understand your honor and i'm hesitant to say that  findings on the relocation says you are good that they were subsided by the board's opinion because in the last statement in the last for the foregoing reasons and those articulated by the immigration judge in her decision we affirm the immigration judge's decision so i think that our position is that that does subsume the relocation finding that doesn't then get to your question about whether or not the i j a mistakenly press whatever stand that but but it depends on through what lens you look at the evidence and where you place the burden so that's why i'm asking so i think that even even if you look at it from the standpoint of the government's burden the there was evidence of record that the family successfully relocated i understand that i just don't think you've ever answered my first question to  that there is mixed country condition evidence including the state department reports and the newspaper article i don't think it was left off i think that what that substantial evidence standard applies here and that the agency found that there wasn't enough evidence in in you know the country commission reports or the newspaper articles to show they acquiesced and i think that that that that's certainly a supportable  the case that when a police corruption is a problem the government continues to prosecute corruption but that doesn't deal with all the evidence of for the extraordinary levels of violence the fact that the police aren't in forcing you know essentially and out of forcing a war and that kidnappings are a problem both and immoral parts of the country as well as as and guatemala city and that's what all that the all that said about it is here the country background information in the case of our police corruption is a problem the government continues to prosecute it is that a sufficiently adequate bottom line is that the state department reports as is usually the case are mixed and while there might be some evidence of corruption there's also some evidence of prosecution so i think that where there is mixed evidence like this i mean there have been cases where the court has said that like for instance in madrigal that there's has been a showing of possible that acquiescence you could show acquiescence but in that case there was specifically in the facts in the underlying facts some sort of associate sumps some allegation that there was a status of the applicant that related to the corruption these were former military officers in this case we don't have this this applicant doesn't have any sort of special special or particular status that would make this more of a  that more likely where there would be corruption so i think that the bottom line is he hasn't shown state action and he hasn't shown acquiescence he hasn't met that burden of proof and without that he can't succeed without particular social group i we do there are cases that i can provide to this court afterwards there's an unreported case from two thousand and ten where returning home olens from the united states who were i just got an e mail from colleagues saying that we should rely generally on the law to come into court and there is something that you didn't know that you knew you would talk about and you didn't have the courtesy to provide opposing before you open your mouth in court and raise something like this it was that attacked him and the citations are to the record to settle that he maintained in this testimony before the immigration judge walk in the door and he  thought they were police in his way of articulating things very well could be i can't overly read his mind but he said they wouldn't look like police when he opened the door even though they said they were police but he  continued while they were in the house that they said that they were the police and there's a state actor there and his wife also said that they told him that they were in cahoots with the police don't bother going to the police so we have more sta or in cooperation with the group yeah gallagher you know i know that's that was part of your argument but i don't you know just because somebody identifies themselves as a state actor doesn't make a mistake a state actor for the purposes of immigration you know when you're dealing with a  we're stuck with how the police behave and what goes on there and any case i think the court also has a letter that says that when you're when you're dealing with this  with the police the fact that the the board that's said that if the police are in effect of that's one thing but if it's a rogue policeman and these gentlemen assuming they were police were real policem