kidnapped beaten and then threatened by gunpoint by public official police to leave the country or he kill agency twenty years ago twenty four years ago twenty one over over a couple that with significant passage of time and put that together and say that the threat is no longer real so the only evidence in the record right now is the fact that and so on the mental aspect regulations show that the regulations indicate that the threat of imminent death is a form of torture and in this case mr torres was threatened at gunpoint to leave or be killed and that is an imminent threat of death that's how  i think anybody would interpret that and that's how mr torres interpret it as well and as a result he left the country opinion did not consider the mental aspect the mental pain and suffering that he went through and did not consider whether that was under regulation a form of torture she ask on the public official issue agencies finding is not supported by substantial evidence the agency did not make an adverse credibility finding against mr torres therefore his testimony may be sufficient to sustain h burden without corroboration or does he have to make a credibility determination here in other words the real credibility would it not be the individual who claimed to be the police officer a public official taurus can be believed with respect to public official supposed like officials statement that he was a police officer and so there was no reason to discredit him with respect to who this person purported to be as correct the only evidence in the record however is the fact that mr torres was told by this individual that he was a police officer also this police officer was able to garner three or four other individuals to help him perform this act it's possible that those people are also police officers you know that's speculation but if the only evidence is that he was a police officer and so class credible by saying hey i'm a police officer that is a possibility here i mean it was the uniform of badge he never saw him given the fact that he was kidnapped by multiple people tied up on it in a chair in a room beaten and later a person came in and point a gun at his head it doesn't seem necessary to then also say oh by the way  the police officer in order to get his compliance it's likely that mr torres would have reacted the same way if it had been just another individual who made the same type of threat maybe maybe not maybe he second element is that such torture is more likely than not to occur in the country of removal the petitioner have the burden of proving both of those elements and he has failed to do so here with regard to the state action requirement the record evidence simply does not compel the completion that del mar was a police officer on the one hand we have facts to indicate that prior to the one thousand nine hundred three incident petitioner had never seen never met del mar had never even heard of him let alone heard of the fact that he was a police officer or suppose a fact that he was a police officer and he never saw him or heard from denmark after the one thousand nine hundred thirty incident during this one interaction donmar was in plain clothes he did not wear a badge or or display any other clothing or anything indicating to or suggesting that he was a police officer the petitioner was picked up in a cargo van but it sure does not allege that the cargo van was a police type vehicle or head decals or any police equipment inside was taken to an unknown location and position does not allege that the other three individuals who accompanied del mar even claim that they too were police officers just omar and on the other hand all we have is the petitioners testimony saying that mark told him that he was the police officer and we also have petitioners testimony acknowledging the fact that del mar may have been lying on this point in order to say i mean that's it is but for to make his claim out under the convention against torture it also needs to show that he is a police officer and equally plausible under these facts that are in the record it could be equally plausible that del mar said he was a police officer and additional show of force to get the petitioner to stay away from his ex wife or and like your honor said earlier to also prevent petitioner from haps going to the police later and if he is go make a claim against m r we have nothing else and in the months following the incident protest petitioner never saw evelyn that acts his ex girlfriend never once again solid omar never once again saw these three other individuals  never made any attempt to talk to anyone to say well was this woman really that i was dating was she married was she married to a police officer there was nothing on the part of petitioner to do any of that and he remained in bailey's for one month following the incident  never saw these people again and nothing else happened to him given these facts in the way of the facts there is just simply is not enough evidence to compel the conclusion that del mar was in fact a police officer and that state action requirement is a requirement to prove a convention against torture claims i was curious why this individual was removed why what is i think there's a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and there's also a blues a felony marwan a conviction is that right mention in the briefs i believe of of an arrest for identity theft but there's not a conviction for that is there not to my knowledge and then with regard to the likely had a future torture petitioner again simply fails to show that  is he even still harbors that it's been twenty three years it's just speculation that he would still harbor this jealousy against petitioner for having an affair with his ex wife twenty four plus years ago i have a somewhat hypothetical question for you in this case assume that the petitioner here did in fact establish that del mar was in fact a police officer and i know my saying that's happened but just assume that for a moment establish he was a police officer in three for his future persecution argument does he have to confirm that mr mr del mar or whatever his name is is still a police officer in twenty seventeen or is it enough to say he was simply a police future fear persecution or torture problem either show that he was still a police officer because there needs some kind of state action requirement or which is not the case here that he is a civilian and the government would act we asked sure of torture as a civilian and if he was a retired police officer and got his buddies who were still active in the police department to rough him up when he returned that might be an extension i would take it hypothetically that could be awkward ok thank you but again the likelihood of that happening is just not present here there's no indication that del mar is even alive that he would know petitioner would return or that he still harbors this this jealousy towards and that would make him act on the threat he said against petition twenty four years ago and petitioner relies on the highly case a lot to show that it's insufficient to have a mere speculative claim but at this point all the evidence we have is just mere speculation that  the highly case in particular which is oftentimes these fear of future persecution or torture claims or something and more than just this happened to me in the past and therefore i feel like it will happen against me in the future in the highly case there was letters from the petitioners brother and other parties indicating that her would be torturer was still seeking her out while she was out of girlfriend  mcgill was in fact a police officer if somebody if he if you believe that he was a police officer he would then go to the police and ask if this person was an officer it's likely that you know he would he would get into some of his cohorts and and possibly get himself into trouble that way my idea of had some means of communication though with the supposed ex wife his girlfriend and there's no nothing in the records there was any further contact whatsoever that's right he said that he didn't contact her and she didn't contact him and that's a reasonable step to take if if if your life was just threatened to to not speak with that person or not carry on a relationship with that person  also want to counsel made a point that the band wasn't a police band that nobody was wearing uniforms except for a but a local official is a public official whether or not they're acting in official capacity so the fact that none of them are you wearing uniforms or wearing badges or driving a police van really has no relevance it's far as proving the fact that he was a public official