sister about when her partner likelihood that paragraph that he's talking about a book about government acquiescence but because it's a legitimate consideration although he doesn't bear the burden and the government has no to bear the burden you know to show absolutely the opposite the issue is legitimate for the the board to consider correct i don't believe that it is you it's from mexicans i'm talking organizations from the border and if the man in the video states we go everywhere we have people all over the border that is evidence of potential for harm outside of the and in this case the agency did not abuse their discretion in coming to this to the conclusion because they did not act arbitrarily or rationally and they did not act contrary to the law in play  immigration judges this isn't the immigration judge specific clear refers to the fact that there is corruption in mexico that there is police corruption and that's that's part of their decision they don't tortured and it's not clear whether those specific events rose to the level of torture it does show that there is consistent with what the immigration judge found there is a high degree of  the you have to look back at what the the rule is here is that no person will be deemed to have breached a legal responsibility to intervene of such a person is unable to intervene or if the person intervenes but is unable to prevent the activity that constitutes the torture so in this case although petitioner makes the argument that when they went to the military force in his hometown as his family he wasn't there but when his family went that the military told him and told the family that they couldn't and that case is more similar to this case that's a case where the police some forms the petitioner that they could not they couldn't protect the protesters family from colombia narco terrorists and the cord has found that that was not considered to be acquiescence the fact that the the fact that the local government or the local military so that we aren't able to protect you you need to leave self is ineffectiveness that's this context of the cat clan there there is no unable or unwilling distinction because that's a separate asylum distinction that we discuss whether of whether the petitioner meets the  story irons out or not that's that's not what's an issue and one could certainly suggest that well perhaps they made a maybe they made their his little likelihood standard maybe they didn't but i would argue that this court's stand on review in considering whether the board considered the reasonable likelihood stan or not is whether they abused their discretion in coming to the conclusion that they didn't meet the reasonable likelihood standard so that the court certainly open to consider that but we're arguing that the court considered the reasonable likelihood stand the board i'm sorry the board considered the likely result likelihood standard and appropriately determined that there evidence did not need that have provided warnings to him individual in his family that they should not go back there and although that's it's it's it's kind of a horrible reality that you have the specials that would warn you to acquiesce in their torture it sounds to me they're doing what they can to prevent torture of the petitioner returning back and that would lead me to my next argument which would be the relocation issue  the the agency also did use their discretion finding that considering the the relocation issue that that it appeared that petitioner could relocate into a different region of mexico and under malta not the board an immigration judge must consider all evidence and that includes relocation as one factor and as as was discussed that this does not place  burden on the petitioner to show that relocation is impossible but i'm saying the same time it does not shift the burden to the government side to show that that they have to specifically find that this person is well i mean the issue here you know i think you stated it correctly because there isn't a burden with respect to relocation and path but i think council  just call on this was correct and the immigration judge specifically finds that the the lows criminals to gang that persist their claims to be the most afraid of from his hometown  they correctly identify that the record of and provided by the chester doesn't indicate that those green arrows are active anywhere besides his hometown even his even his evidence about the home guerrero there's a lot there's a long article i think it's from university of san diego where they discuss all the different threads in the gangs that are active then pereiro and it doesn't mention as far as i was able to tell  into conjunction with the finding about relocation also just found that the the possibility of torture based on that evidence was speculative there wasn't there wasn't any clarity really about what the threat was who they were you don't you can't tell from the record specifically which dang they're affiliated with and although apparently one of the people in the video suggests where everywhere  were at the border but it doesn't really indicate that they would where they would be or what sort of threat that amounts to and i would just argue that i think that the agency didn't have years of discretion in finding that just we don't know who those people are and it appears to be speculative whether or not this these individuals have the power to do what they're going they said they're going to do or they're that they have the means or where they're located so  whether or not that would prevent relocation is is not clear enough to not establish a reasonable life that he would be tortured if he could not relocate as i see my time has run out of there are no other questions that i'll just include and i just make a comment before we pass this on this and then this case has compelling facts and there are two other immigration cases that were on our docket really relocation is an issue can be part of the analysis correct of course of course yeah and mine is a absence of evidence on that does that necessarily mean that the burden is on the