acknowledges that mr medication suffers from schizoaffective disorder which is a serious mental condition for good reason individuals with schizo affective disorder are classed members under franco that's alice and as class members there is no presumption of competency for these individuals unlike the general population under franco these individuals must be given a qualified representative unless the i j a determines quote there is no reasonable cause to believe unquote that these individuals mental deficiency will impair their ability to proceed although the i j a purported to apply franco is perfunctory compensation corey was legally deficient for several reasons for one thing the i j a fail to apply a crucial element of the franco analysis that's the determination whether the person's ability to present rational and coherent testimony based upon adequate recall was intact now the record is filled with instances in which the i j a actually made findings that mr immigration judge the problem is what testimony may not have come out and when mr mannikin came forward he was directly figuring out his memories as he was testifying if you look throughout the record there are various instances where the either the immigration judge or the government even said you know this actually kind of sounds off are you sure this is what actually happened mr mckinnon knowledge you know i'm telling the truth here but i understand i have to pass those nations i don't know this may have not actually occurred now these are all playing out in front of the immigration judge which is not one should happened mr american should have had an opportunity to sit down with someone go through his memories undetermined ok these are likely hallucinations don't testify about these this is what probably happened do you think this is what happened that actually played out in front of the immigration this finding simply don't match with that satisfying that element that's one point in the immigration judge find that he has completed his own application and the process he has gone through and everything he had done up to that  point let the immigration judge to believe that he was competent yes your honor and those are elements of the franco analysis which is pretty in depth now i think it's pretty clear for the record the immigration judge was trying to apply franco there's no question he wasn't three states but mr madison's actually because his disorder is a member of the class and specifically applies to him so he's the exception and that's what presumption is different than the normal population so that's one thing that's that element of frank of it adequate recall another thing is just really the medical information that was available the immigration judge did not inquire about now this court had a recent decision earlier this year in calderon rodriguez in which which is cited in the government's brief in which the immigration judge did correct that's what i'd like citing it but in the end it wasn't quite this long in this case it wasn't a year but what we have here is we have a dr lewis report which was from november twenty fifth teen now at the time of the initial competency inquiry that was ok at that point i mean that that was very grateful for the medication and he really had clear his head apparently so i mean by all accounts and i think your other arguments a stronger one i by all accounts at this point he was coping the question is whe there's anything about his recollections that matter your honor at the is correct the petitioner did say he was feeling better but the i just questions in march were actually fairly perfunctory is just are you feeling are you going to watch what he did if the are there and he also observed him at the hearing he did observe him at the hearing your honor and that's i mean that's part of the concern the findings were that his memory was was impacted by this condition and the point specifically was called around rodriguez i think in this case your honor is that the judge was argument the immigration judge here i think failed to consider a fair amount of evidence that was actually in the record your point just burns on the immigration judge credited what mr medicaid stated that means and of course president he believes the facts  talked about a false arrest in which the police specifically said we're sending him prison so you can be made that friends mr medical testified that he went to prison he met those that as friends was beaten as a result of that because he refused to join spent several times in prison and then upon t immigration judge credit all of that so moving forward we have to assume that all actually happened and yet when it came time to the immigration judges analysis the immigration judge didn't even take these facts into consideration for instance the immigration judge stated mr me had quote issues with his at us in prison that they beat him up but there was nothing described beyond that incident with his that asked quote that's error eighty five that's simply not true he described multiple instances with his at us and that's in the record those are the immigration judges findings which he disregarded the immigration just saying something like that he killed his torture yes so i've got that right here that's that they are two thirty three to thirty four mr medically and i think when you realize the case was slipping away from him said you know your honor quote if they see me i'm not working with this that us they were going to kill me or send me back to jail and the immigration judges response was understood but that's not torture now that's not the case though what what torture says we have colby holder for instance your honor that specifically describes beatings and killings an extrajudicial execution is torture if that's not torture it really i mean we're not left with much else so you're and i mean i think that's a misstatement of law as far as what constitutes torture the i j a credit is that statement so if that's true that should have been considered torture and that probably would be actually grounds for granting relief now what we've asked for is that a bare minimum the immigration judge simply go back and consider the evidence before and i think this court would be well within its right to actually grant casts but at a bare minimum i think the immigration judge needs to be so your argument is not that because of mister mental condition that there wasn't that he lacked evidence to present to the court only that he didn't have the opportunity to present additional evidence to the immigration judge so your argument is not so much that as it is that there was all the evidence presented but the immigration judge didn't on the extent of your email and obviously if if you agree that mr medicaid should have had a qualified represented have the records fully open because at that point the testimony needs to be redeveloped if you granted it more narrowly i think there's enough in the record currently were they immigration judge could review and should find that mr american qualifies under cap but ideally what we're asking for some mr mehta can also be able to give additional testimony and i see that my time is up to my score as many please the court my name is margo and if and for the united states government this case presents two distinct issues the first is with whether the record compels the reversal of immigration judges competency finding and the second is whether the record compels the reversal of immigration judges denial of protection under the convention against torture i will first address competency the petitioner in this case has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and is therefore a fran class member however substantial evidence supports the immigration judges finding that at the time of his hearings he was being treated for this condition and was therefore able to participate in his proceedings and was able to perform the additional functions of self representation as outlined in franco at his december eighteenth hearing the immigration judge confirmed that the petitioner had a rational and factual understanding of the nature and object proceedings understood his privilege to be represented by counsel and understood that he had a right to submit and examine evidence cross examine witnesses and appeal in addition throughout his proceedings the petitioner demonstrated his ability to exercise these rights to respond to allegations in the notice to appear to respond to instructions from the immigration judge in the d h s s and to submit evidence in support of his claim the put petition claims that the immigration judge incorrectly applied that final requirement specifically he states that the immigration judge incorrectly found that he was able to provide coherent testimony based on adequate recall never the less the record undermines this claim as outlined in the immigration judge's decision the petitioner was able to provide coherent testimony regarding his multiple legal entries into the united states his criminal history including his two thousand and five robbery conviction and his experiences in guatemala in addition despite the petitioners claim that he was unable to distinguish between memories and who is nation's the prisoner in fact testified to testified that although he used to competency but what i meant trouble with on the case is the cap issue so i hope you will address that some way my question in my mind is if the if the  credit credit we credit is testimony and the adjutant said murder is not torture then why shouldn't we take what grant and send it back on an well i believe in that interaction i believe what the immigration judge was saying was that the threat of the threat of death the petitioner testified that while the police were beating him up there was a death threat and the immigration judge i believe in that interaction was saying that that was not that that was not torture that the threat of death was not torture as the immigration judge outlined in his decision   that following that he lived for a month and didn't have any continued threats and so because none of those instances of harm constituted torture the agency found that even if he faced future harm he didn't establish that he faced future torture remember the standard under cat is that he has to show that he would more likely than not be tortured which is defined as an extreme form of and also there was no reference at all to the country conditions report was this court is found in laredo martinez there is a presumption that the immigration judge considered all of the evidence in the record and as this court put pointed out in cole a general statement that the immigration judge consider these these as evidence is sufficient absent a showing that the immigration judge in fact failed to consider that he or the judge did know in his decision that he consider the country reports on page one hundred one hundred two of the record he referenced that he'd consider the reports and that to the extent that they showed general  corruption in guatemala and they did they didn't and he he considered them in reference to his asylum withholding claim and so here given that the country paid condition reports don't show shed any additional light the petitioners claim of for cat immigration judges consideration in his decision was sufficient under cop actions it is his testimony as i understand it was that he was connection to the arresting officers i e they brought him up to begin with and plainview was a prison officials and then he was in prison for three months and then he was released and then he could and then he went back and to prison again there was wrong well they both did the immigration judge and the board both referenced all of those events and i believe in discussing them as an isolated incident they were discussing those events that sequence of