member of the state is told him you're going to be held accountable for that and so really spending the petitioner now very reasonably fears that as these very high ranking member of the seda strata told him if he goes back to mexico he'll be held accountable for it which the sages does by inflicting brutal torture and death and so there are parts of the record they want to highlight it may sweep a little too broadly the thought they were hearing also there had not been an explicit threat there hadn't been as we've seen in other cases for example visits to threats to family members and so on right so they do say there hasn't been context is twenty thirteen which is when the facts arise gave rise which is his arrest but the problem with that is what i call penalize saying the petitioner for impossible for them to require him to show oh yeah my relative in mexico has me harbored he doesn't have such relatives so that's why it's important to look at the regulation with a very specific and detailed risk assessment in accordance with the regulations when i read the opinion the only reference to the experts testimony is that he's accepted as an expert  based on the proffer and the i j a says even though he gave ample information regarding conditions in mexico the claim it's purely speculative so when i went to read the opinion i thought he's giving a statement of general conditions in mexico regarding the status and he didn't actually apply it to this applicant but there's a whole section a robust section in this opinion where he actually applies the general conditions that he preferred to in depth earlier to this applicant's specific factual situation so there's just those two things cannot be reconciled correct your honor and it's not only does he talk about the seat is what they do this a matter of pattern practice not only about the cha the petitioner to harvard he also talks about he gives examples of sensibility trade individuals and he talks about things for example there are background checks methodology used there pick ups so organization is form is to conduct counterintelligence to conduct background checks on people that they care about and so both the explain nation is extremely compelling about the circumstances of this case something that strikes me and that i was just thinking from the logical or human nature perspective if any were to if we were to think of that someone who was a half a million dollars to a million dollars affirm what we do to a person we think oses that much money we'll be investing hundred bucks in trying to recover half a million for having or getting back at the person we think is wrong to us in that way i think tilt the logical answer from even the natural perspective and based on the evidence is yes i want to focus in on the connections between the zetas and and cheshire because part of what we're struggling with is the general versus  particulars and as i understand it you've got mr a stratus connection to the zetas he's been a fugitive since july of thirteen correct correct then you've got mr estrada statement where  realizes the toolbox are full of contraband he ends up building the separate room in the statement is that mr reeve just paid yet could no longer leave the organization organization and then the car otherwise he would was responsible for what might happen to the contraband meeting mr where the speed correct correct then you've got what happened to this common friend a friend maybe even the same how could someone say that that is speculation at all and not based to fact is his it's clearly not supported by the record and more importantly you don't even get to that question here because there's just no logical bridge between the conclusions the judge group and the record or even the claimants presented and i think that's that's the problem there was an unwillingness to not analyze the claim as court my name is jennifer singer and i represent the united states attorney general the respondent in this matter this case boils down to the question of whether petitioners evidence shows that he himself will be singled out for torture by the us and the answer t question in the government's estimation is no that is not the case and it's not the case for two reasons first of all the petitioner evidence does not show that he is in the class of people who does a does target for torture he claims that he will be torture because he will be viewed as a debtor but if you've read all of the country conditions evidence it reflects that debtors are people who ripped off loads of drugs scam drugs out the tops get money off the top people who have stolen from  best people who pocket money people who are loaned money to sell drugs for resale or there was one instance where someone was given a loan to start a business that wasn't the basis of i think the i choose or the opinion the reason  claim was rejected because it was speculated and that's what the b i affirmed so were limited to the basis on which the agency decided the case and that basis cannot stand in the face of this very detailed expert report that was handled in an extremely dismissive way there's just no way to reconcile the detailed analysis of this applicant's significant factual risk i mean there was that there was a personalized risk assessment that this expert performed and opine about and his report was accepted it wasn't rejected it wasn't he wasn't deemed not an expert i mean it's in the record and it's just missed as speculative that those two things just can't be reconciled i respectfully disagree i absent generalized evidence this is a specific risk assessment analyzing this cat applicants personal situation of personal facts of his case and his claim and making a specific risk assessment based on what this expert witness knows about the conditions on the ground and the operation of this organized criminal enterprise again i respectfully disagree because absent individualized evidence of the specific risk so the petitioner it's generalized evidence and that's what makes the claim speculative and a degree that both the expert witness report came in without issue but reading the entire expert witness report the only specific instances that meet in jones points out is that he says certain doubters such as those who have floating dots or ripped off loads of drugs may be disciplined or killed and sit in the administrative record for ninety seven or they're killed if they do something that they're not supposed to do or they are tortured if someone has stolen from them and that's it for ninety eight and also that  corrections online report and he says that if you look at it it looks like he was paroled the same day he was so to sentence but if you actually look at it i have it right here real to that same department of corrections so five years on an eight year sentence to me is a significant amount of time and would not make it dismember perceive that he was a snitch and i think the information matt jones relied on just took out two sentences from this point out rather than looking at the whole thing in its entirety the agency didn't do any of this analysis that you're sketching here the agency just sent this claim is speculative and jones has specific instances that he uses to support his opinion are not and you can record that if a court disagrees about the borg or the immigration judges analysis if there were that kind of analysis in this agency opinion maybe your argument would be would carry the day but there isn't any analysis other than the statement that this is a speculative claim again i have spent some total of the you know this agreed but it's a claim a speculative when it's not based upon evidence and where there is not evidence that places petitioner in the category of people who are targeted for harm by the state us and that's what makes his claim speculative if the court were to disagree with that i would he wasn't in prison which makes it seem even more like a snitch because that's exactly what happens you get busted by the police you get let out quote grading with the police to gather information so that alone  at all definitely not in this record would not be an issue they did not believe that was something that mental to the plainly let soul about what they were speculation or whether he'd been tortured and so for those reasons not only