in whether mr heene family is more likely than not to be tortured upon being returned to mexico and also whether mr lena needs to specify a particular persecutor to prove that it's more likely than not that he will be tortured  after the first issue the rid of the issue is whether or not a particular pierrette in this case the reason why then case the acts were not random it's clear that the well the i g said that linking all the the killings of his family in mexico that it was the connection with case are that mr molina is being threatened by someone and unlike asylum persecutor doesn't need to be specified only that the government ask is acquiesce and it would be unfair and it would be  there's no particular start to mr molina given the incidents that occurred or in the newspaper obviously it's known to the government and the refusal to contain the issue or  these road to or for them so you know fully with the gangs in the drug business have been convicted for drug deals right in this country and in mexico and there's you know so i think what the is you know infer that well it's just as reasonable to think that you know these are the people that we're going after by gangs not have because of their own activities not because of their relation to the petitioner and so there's no nexus between you know those things and the petitioner right isn't that the basic basis of the of the denial of the you know connection between what happened his relatives and that i mean that the sign that they're after him are it's not necessarily that as you two three family members of them are yes they were themselves involved in some issues and the two that were threatened but they were also five family members that had nothing to do with cartels or  drugs they were just simply part of the family and known to be one of them was the mother of one of the nephews and the other was were just cousins and minor children so the fact that even killing minor children well maybe that's a possible efforts but that's not the only reasonable inference the problem is you see i mean the b i hear it in telegraph its own inferences from that evidence right and it seems to me there inference is reasonable honor well it could be reasonable and the more recent more logical is that the family's being targeted and that mr molina is being targeted while the family is who the family is the families are you know his cousins or group  these you know cartel actions against his cousin than his brothers his relatives was based upon their wanted to get even with the petition burden of proving that it's more likely than not that he would suffer harm in the future with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or anybody else acting under an official capacity as a court to where this case is reviewed under substantial evidence standard refer to the extent there's more than one reasonable inference this court has to be convinced that that the corrective and the inference of the petition was something that a reasonable due to cater would be compelled to find because because that's what our case my says well you don't have to identify a specific individual who's going to who you fear who's going to torture you should you be turned back to the right but as as the immigration judge indicated as my opponent can see that he wasn't indicating that you have to have that unknown perpetrator in order to proceed with the claim under the convention that's torture but what you have to have at some point is to be able to prove that's more likely than not that torture is going to purchase individual and he the immigration judge quite specifically said that without knowing who this he received these threats from or who these assailants were it's impossible for him to evaluate the risk that this person might have who knows what cartel it is that is looking for mr molina if it's a really big part tell with lots of resources that can find him that's one story it's one way to evaluate the risk you think is it you know his fear is completely you know unfounded but there's no basis for it i mean he is involved in a drug deal up here loses sixty three kilograms of cocaine at the time the street value must have been really significant that's a lot of coke that's a lot of million would suffer harm in the future but the immigration judge as you said wrote a very thorough opinion and which he specifically idolized the expert testimony did find him to be credible but whether he's credible or not of course is not the issue the issue is whether he's shown in aggregate that there's a more probable than not likelihood that he would suffer torture only if you just did you actually consider everything in the aggregate to go through each claim and just said no not this not this not this but he doesn't so there's really that it was more likely than not that that he would suffer torture upon upon return so by the immigration judge looking at what the expert said and considering his testimony fairly individually and in the aggregate and determining that despite that he's a credible witness he still didn't think that there was a more probable and not likelihood of torture that he did consider everything both individually and and out and that's what's required by this court and that's what this agency did and therefore that's why we believe under substantial evidence standard can you point to anything in either the i gave the order or in the behavior order that would indicate that they looked at you know all the something else out that i think demonstrates that everything was looked at in the aggregate first you know if you look at the immigration judge's opinion and i'm specifically referring to the last three pages of sixty seven through sixty nine in the last paragraph on page sixty seven he's looking at this issue of targeting family members what were were family members really being targeted because of their last name and he comes to the conclusion at the top of page sixty eight that look you know he can  speculate he can't it can't determine whether any of these past incidences against other members of the molina family had anything to do with the risk that that mr mclean faces so he's really cancel that idea out so there's no need when you have three factors to look at and one of them is completely dismissed as something you can't even evaluate that's not something well you don't quite aggregated i'm sorry you don't quite aggregated right you can occur we can only speculate as to whether they occurred right now whether you can only speculate in the abstract as to one end doesn't mean it's not worth considering along with other factors and in addition in everything in aggregate we find that there's less than fifty percent risk of torture but it lacks that sentence but context really when you look at it they've looked at every single incident dismissed them as and i think by dismissing these things individually still the immigration judge what was looking at everything looking carefully at dr berryman's testimony which is considered everything in the aggregate but still finding even though dr banner was credible findings still that he did not show that it was more than fifty percent likelihood they would suffer torture is indicative that the agency considered evidence in the aggregate but importantly your honor that's only half the story of whether or not it's more likely than not that he would suffer torture because you still have to show that there are state action involved in other words that the torture was done with the consent or acquiescence or will be done with the consent raffi  is evidence in the record that this is the board could rely on trial rely upon to show substantial evidence that that they're relying on the north to come to the conclusion that they did it but importantly though in even argues state action in her opening brief to the court and therefore she's waive that issue if the court looks at that action she's waived half the argument regarding the convention against torture by only demonstrating that it's more likely than not she didn't even touch on the board's opinion where it said that there's nothing to show consent or acquiescence on behalf of a public official so between all of that i think that the left to rely individual like or whole the field to review whether or not removing it having a tattoo would cause someone issues in seeking medical help in a medical facility in this case