protection under the convention against torture by failing and ignoring to consider material evidence in the record and misapply in the law petitioner he says can you hold that an agency cannot do particularly in a case such as this one where a man's life is a risk the factual basis for the claim and the procedural history is quite quite long but the short version of the undisputed facts facts that an issue for review is that he asked for credit of half a pound of drugs and he was given an additional ten ounces so he calculated based on the prices at the time that he owes thirty thousand dollars that would be without interest and that would be at the time so did they set a deadline and when they had to pay that money implicitly yes the the last encounter that petitioner had with the set as member by the name of jose he requested that half a pound for him to be paid on the fifteen thousand plus that as soon as possible ounces he would try to make the ho say ask him to sell that as well so that he could painful that was the right i'm lost he still owes thirty thousand does correct has he paid any so he hasn't paid any part at all is there a deadlock i mean have they told him by when he has to pay the thirty thousand there was no said the line your honor but at the same time at the time there was no expectation that he would be caught by u s law enforcement your honor and so fruit if he goes back they're going to get after him because he was three thousand no whereabouts recorrect it's my understanding based on the country reports and the experts report said that this is one way that this state has enforced discipline cartel discipline is that they use these various forms of violence torture and and killings and through among other means corrupt police officers to maintain discipline within the cartels so it's it's not just i mean it is specific to your client but it's also widespread which i think is part of your claim as well that the immigration judge in the v a a did not acknowledge that correct you're out of your honor there's two points to be me regarding that first that aside from general torture for transgressions we can call it so it is even more directly towards my client that by this close information he's marked for death so it's not aside from the court and to be a not considering that generally well proven by this record and by anyone who knows anything about the status quo tell that any transgression just not go unpunished because that's how they thrive that's how they show their power because he's now consider and one withholding is based on fear of future persecution it is require upon the alien to show that relocation within the country beyond reasonable it's a statutory requirement for ca deferral however that is not a requirement and it's important to know that even if a withholding wanted to based on past persecution or the ailing can successfully show past persecution burdensome the government to show and in this case government show nothing in fact that is one of the main points for the expert testimony along with all the information the record shows that the government stipulated to actually shows a relocation in this case would be young recent of the experts talks about that regarding the great and very efficient military style network that the set is has created so although there may not be bodies the entire mexican territory the network allows them to find locate and murder people who they consider to be informants and so in that sense and your honor is very different first for the relief  is seeking that does not require and the evidence in the record that was stipulated to by the parties by the government shows the real case will not be possible and therefore that's not at issue here transgress upon them in any way they have very long memories and their mode is a proud day is to not forgive or forget what you've done that was the fission or sexpert but that's not the only expert opinion tho submitted for the court to consider was who did it second expert scholar and professor george grayson which this court has consider also in that case that you're under decided recently and past torture and that that had been done by hands of police officers which he said those could be rogue officers and in doing so she basically exemplifies how misguided her analysis because the letter of the law article one of the cat convention and the implementing regulation says the analysis is whether a public official or a person with official capacity would consent or acquiesce a public official a person singular the letter of the law mandates that  officer is sufficient to establish a stablish questions particularly when as this court has repeatedly held the analysis is not whether there is one or many officers that would consent but whether the government as a whole can prevent it so it's the ability to prevent and it's effectiveness so it is clear by her announces that she was holding the petitioner to understand her the doesn't exist under the law the la broke officers are you know so long as the government can prevent the torture there you flip it open people well even setting aside that distinction which is important legal one we've got record evidence in the form of the experts report about widespread corruption and co option of local police departments by the state is that the these local police departments and their officers are captive of the  it's clear that the current administration under president pena nieto for mexico i can knowledge of knowledge that military forces and police officers had engaged in torture on behalf of the crew tells so would the mexican her main reason for not finding out questions and i'll end my opening argument that that is the deployment of military well everything in the record shows how the deployment of military actually increased torture by security forces and cartels because the military was actually acting on behalf of the cartels as well as police officers so when the piece of evidence that she relied on is not even fully please the court my name is tony pottinger not represent the government in this manner i'm going to begin by just addressing a couple points made by counsel with respect to the stipulation the government's view is that while the government did stipulate to admission of that affidavit and as well as the other expert testimony i certainly do not stipulate that it was necessarily true nor does the stipulation require the immigration judge  to rule in the petitioners favor on the on account of that evidence well you didn't put anything in to contradict it and by stipulating to it waived cross examination of the expert to try to undermine what she said  know reports it is correct your honor we did that by stipulating waive cross examination however the relevant legal standard is that the i j makes an individualized determination based on not only that evidence but all the other evidence including petitioners testimony right but it stands on tantra dictated in the record and i didn't do anything to address it that's that's that's correct out how is that not alone and not to grant this edition because under the sea a far country condition evidence is is one factor but it's not the only factor you look to it's very significant evidence in  petitioners favor it is evidence in his every runner however his individualized case where we have evidence it's also not in his favor specifically that he returned to mexico on his own voli on the evidence after the incident in the hotel room with the police officers that that he was trying to pay off the debt your honor in the record his motivation was  more more narcotics so that he could sell it to pay off the debt that was his motive your honor but it doesn't require the i j a in this case under the deferential substantial evidence standard  government's not acknowledge that jose had actually the petitioner had fear he found him credible and in some of his account however that's not the same as that he more likely than not would be  a fifty one percent chance of being killed if you're sent back to mexico then you have sent back right if you guys would more likely than not means doesn't yes your honor now what if you have a forty nine percent of being killed and sent back in that way if you're sent back to mexico forty nine percent chance of of being yeah which are to forty nine percent instead of fifty one percent  that is that the test in that scenario that's what in that scenario your honor if a i j determined and i don't know if they ever would but would say ok you're only forty nine percent likely to be tortured or killed their nonsense to say that someone who only has a forty nine percent probability of being killed cannot get cannot appeal to the convention against torture are are you going to defend that in your heart you know my position defending the agency which applies the i'm asking you what you think you're asking me in my pop personal capacity and honor you think it makes any sense to have that kind of is not of that person's risk based on the facts surrounding his his life and i think that's what the i j a in the board did here and looking at the i j didn't qualify and more likely or not not so so you think that's good so if the if the immigration judge said forty nine percent that's less than fifty percent therefore you go back right probability of death your honor respectfully i realize i'm not going to convince you on what do you think i'm asking you whether you actually agree with that regulation or whether you're just defending it because you think it's your job do you do you agree do really it's the right test fifty one percent you know that sent back forty nine percent percent that you want to personally i would  numbers on something so serious i would look at all the facts and make the best judgment i could based on what was in front of me and would be that would not be my approach from a retired person i mean ask a different question the immigration judge seems to think that the government has to be acquiescent in torture but that's not what that's not the law it's the it's the analysis was that they would not he's talking the government as a whole i don't think you know better you should or should i supposed to do that you don't have to have the government has a whole acquiescent you just need a public official or other person acting in a fishing capacity right your honor i agree that it can in some cases a mere low level actor can can get you to acquiescence in this case i don't think the judge was absolving what happened in that hotel in fact he specifically excuse me she found it was torture i would disagree with coun says the respondent has not demonstrated that is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the mexican government ishaan or it's our that's not the right that's not the decision at the governing level by the people who run the government not by a police officer yet shown it but again in the judge's decision same government i don't i don't agree that the judge is ignoring well based government and local yes and so the mexican government police officers not the mexican government right i disagree that with your reading of mexican government my reading of that it would be that it includes you know government officials in mexico i realize i'm not going to sound like i'm not going to convention that but that is and i guess that's what their policy is whether it's being successful or not so i guess i have my problem with acquiescence is that it is kind of a nebulous principle and it doesn't apply to everyone and and i would in his state save just one or two or even a handful of police officers who are corrupt will write that but fifty in one forty nine case they thought there really wasn't enough there to show that this guy had a genuine fear of first heard of fears of future persecution for the reason that he went back and had a rather benign transaction it came came back it said or that it subsided and i'm you know i have a problem with this case but i'm just i don't want to see it no way whatever the standards that everybody come back here and just as some had said earlier on just because of the atmosphere in mexico of these cartels and their issues activity that nobody wants to go back to mexico if you high her it is and again to your question your honor with respect to acquiescence yes sometimes a low level actor or a bad actor can can get you to acquiescence but in cases where that's happened that's because in the individualized situation of that particular petitioner there were there were you know facts that compelled that result government's view in this case those facts are present how did you feel fear right now and i don't deny that but you know in this case it's it's based on the facts before the i j a and again i didn't say he wasn't afraid and that he was making this up he said that he did not have the didn't meet the threshold for actually being tortured which is different based on the facts subject to remaining questions arse three brief points it shouldn't take more than a minute aside from what you're on a road regarding the mentioning the government the mexican government she also says these were rogue officers requesting a burden that the petitioner doesn't have under the law under the letter of the law second the government is now saying that they stipulated but not really this court well knows they forfeited that objection they didn't say we stipulate to parts of their of the report and not others they stipulated to the whole thing and if they were concerned with accuracy they could have mentioned it to the court and made objections to that and they did not