and the protection of the convention against torture claims petitioners in this case have fled from guatemala to the united states for their very safety yet they have not received a full review of all the evidence and in the record as of the first mental health exception which is you process violation in this case and therefore we ask that there has a need of summary determination would you say the news they failed address all of the issues if there was at least that if a whole entire argument is just completely ignore the new constitutes a clear due process violation i think it holds here that by not addressing the petitioners claim or testimony in any regards to this court must remain on this case back down to timely matter then on the other hand credits the petitioners testimony that he felt he recently filed his application when he found he was being duped by a bogus lawyer if he was actually surprised you can't reconcile both of these arguments over therefore this court ha discussion that it's not enough to simply say ok we didn't discuss it enough that's not the due process of evolution the question is did you have a hearing on it and i'm what i'm having a problem with understanding how you think they didn't get a hearing on it it was raised it was raised to the at least any part of at least you know little has to be addressed in any part of the record for there to be adequate addressing of it thank you case the applicant suffered physical harm to force recruitment several beatings and a vicious attack that left him feeling for three months he suffered mental damage by being forced to watch a suspected video tortured to death as a ghastly foreshadowing of what would happen to him were he to switch sides in this civil war let's assume  past torture the past i mean it does certainly seem very compelling terms what happened based on what the evidence shows but if we get past that to the future persecution how do you handle that it seems that we have i mean we have a board that looked at it gave credibility and rejected the of jay's determination and credibility and there's a look looking at all the evidence of us in the in the various reports you can interpret them different ways and in  there certainly are violations no question about that and as you categorized in your in your brief but a lot of that is not directed in terms of deserves and that everything that with the focus is on labor situations in other situations that are not related to your client easier what you're saying is you would target them differently and they are wrong for not interpreting the way you interpret them which is not the burden on appeal right what we see is that there's a pattern of  continued culture of impunity for military members and a continued power for this military which committed genocide which has not been acknowledged by the board what we're saying is that all of this evidence is clearly report of two thousand and one that shows what human rights violations continue half the abuses relate to labor disputes according to the series visual system to prosecute criminals the two thousand and one two thousand to report begin labor disputes mistreatment  common criminals accidental discharge of police weapons it appears in subs going to the treaty while things certainly are not good and i certainly agree with you there at least from what we see the issues of all the general more generalized reports that two thousand and one un report shows an increase in extrajudicial killings and pressure of witnesses against the military not to testify we are also concerned with where is the evidence here that is or is have actually returned what a mole is it not reasonable that they are too fearful to even return at this point and that's why we're not seeing a huge amount was never my experience again with the evidence given to the board that there are the wife whose case was so full of errors that no deference to the judge or the board the judge made several factual errors they did not say he did not see any evidence of similarly situated people but evidence of that was you granted that word was used but it wasn't the analysis didn't really rely on compelling me that may have just been a a misstatement there but it doesn't appear that the analysis that was applied based on on that  show a ten percent chance we must only show that the fear is based in reality furthermore the boards rejected three claims she did not even make ensuring that they did not accurately review the evidence  admit this this this i think is good news for all of us that they and i think part of the reason why it was a comprehensive is because these people did such a good thorough job of preparing the case you know it's so from that perspective i think we've all we've all been we've all benefited from the good job that the that these students have done so that being said we turned out that reason that back to back to assuming that these people suffered past persecution change country conditions doing the application for release and that certainly there's nothing in the record that compels reversal of that the be i relied primarily on the country condition reports what these reports make clear is the conditions in guatemala well much better than during the time of the civil war still not great in terms of human rights but the local has this have failed to show how they are among the people that very little if any risk i mean not only the country condition report but all of the reports mingle amnesty international oas human rights watch they're all in this record and they all agree on who evidence and that missing piece is testimony or in the villages with which she is familiar deserted since suspected guerrillas are victims of persecution you know that she's familiar with this or that village and to people who had been suspected guerrillas during the civil war disappeared or were murdered or had their houses burned in another village the same kind of thing happened they just the record simply isn't there to compel reversal of the board's findings based on the country reports and the other or the various reports from other organizations which are in the record future and focus on the presumption do you agree with the determination that at least as to human there was no past supervision past torture earth setter i mean it seem pretty extreme well well be correct in that i we would we would contend that it isn't but it's not necessary for you to reach that issue yes i know what i what i would like you to address is the question of the one your departure bar or the not the courts adequately did they did discuss the extraordinary circumstances issue no question about it that this isn't like the guy dac where they completely failed to address that off they did address that i mean perhaps they could have put the words notwithstanding respondents p t s d we are trying but you know they say because these people did such a good job they had all of that before them and indeed for them to have discussed every single thing that was raised you know the the decision would have been this long instead of what we have well that we do have they do have the obligation to address the substance of the motion and i guess the question is hear it in the decision that that's correct that since they did say two years is too long and they had five pages worth of briefing in front of them about the p t s d we have to assume that affected by his mental states and also what about the argument that it's inherent in the determination that it was having had the briefing on the mental state having had the briefing on how long having have the briefing on the lawyers there you do to complete the assignment the board concluded you know based upon almost two years is too long and i guess we come back and maybe we'll just keep going around as to how much they have to put into the decision to deal with it yeah we don't know it to be any considered evidence of his mental state but since they did not mention it the only reasonable conclusion is that they didn't they didn't actually consider that in dr green's act at the davids she actually says that anyone opposing the military is seen as an enemy of the military in girl areas in guatemala which she has spent time and it's the burden on the government to show that returning deserves our state wa