court should therefore reverse and reinstate him now let me explain take some time to explain why the board's holding that the i g clearly erred in regard to the state  action question whether the government would participate or acquiesce is contained in two conclusion brief paragraphs that the record of paid his ten that i shall have both of them ignore or distort the record as to torture by the salvadoran officials the b i a said only one thing that morales is entirely clear boils down to her or her interaction with now within a day or two of arouses return to salvador in two thousand and four a gang emissary sent by our cousin from prison appeared and threatened her they wanted her money and they wanted her to participate in gang extortion getting a clear signal that she was in the crosshairs she stayed less will we can return to the united states but that's not the only factor st of all the th that fact was unimportant but that's the only fact is it was relevant but what about these facts were ours had known relationships and interactions with family members other than her cousin who are ranking  she was a junior member herself for several years in los angeles we know from the underbody testimony of the expert that the government is particularly the seventy one government that is particularly concerned with gang affiliated individuals returning from the united states because the salvadoran government believes that's the genesis of its gang problem criminal gangs have killed or otherwise threatened several of my clients relatives three of them are now dead critically dr mormon again under but on this record testified that the salvadoran police frequently identify individuals as gang members or affiliates simply because of their familial relationships in fact he testified uncontested that he knows of over one hundred cases which innocent family own relations to gang members ha been killed and i count of those relationships and women testified finally that women are particularly vulnerable when you have all these other indicia women are particularly vulnerable to abuses by address that right now this case is really on all fours with this court's decision in alvarado this case that the legal question in this case is whether the clear error standard that the factual matters the factual sequence is the word for use and disagree only about the legal significance of those facts and as this case comes to this court there is no dispute of any historical fact the question is whether the circumstances here meet the legal definition of torture and i just want i want to stress that point because it not simply goes to the jurisdiction but it dovetails with our merits are you because the the the government to be sure wishes to have a rematch so it can challenge the legal consequence right there the what inferences should be drawn to the factual record as to the salvadoran b i a reversal on this is on record at eleven was based soley on the irrelevant conclusion that country conditions in el salvador did not change as it put it in any salient way between tw immigration judge and as the government concedes that too is a legal error but our principal point now i'm getting right to the point here because i've now talk largely about what has been conceded here by the government the principle point is that this is an error that can't be corrected by agreement and the reason is a twofold st of all there's just plenty of evidence in this dr bormann testified without contradiction that in recent years the government has stopped even investigating the murder of gang members the theory being and gang member affiliates like my client that the theory being that every gang member affiliate is better dead than alive that the salvadoran police dr bormann testified will leave gang members off either in the presence of other gang members leaving at the impression that the person is a snitch or in the territory of the rival gang and we'll note on this record that one of my clients cousins was killed by a rival gang the death certificate is in the  record both of these things predictably lead to torture and often death so that's the the evidence but they do so there's plenty of evidence in the record to support acquiescence that remember here the question is not whether what the b i a or this court might do in the st instance the question is unclear or review was the decision of the i j a so and reasonable are rational that that you must that clear as occurred and i don't think that's a close crace but let me address the final thing and then if there's no further questions i'll have a see which is that what with this re man look like the government and it's brief and i've read it several times as carefully as i could i they're not proposing there to draw any new evidence they're not proposing to call any new witnesses they're not proposing to add to the record they just want a do over and that's not appropriate sure the ordinary course but there's nothing further to be done at least the government hasn't told us what that would be anywhere in its brief when they left the court as any further questions i'd like to reserve my time yes you save time for about but he can reverse those findings by on the clear error but we don't have jurisdiction if there's a factual dispute no no your honor and that's one of the one of the main reasons why we disagree with the decision that this case that this record is  nothing in the record there's a no planer that she's ever has in fear of the poor a lot of the fact that the new position is two other cousins who are present who are gang members they've been arrested by the police but there's been no testimony at all that the police are targeting that so that then doing a bad job of it is at least really a legal error i believe that's how the court  burden for many allianz it is not categorically irreparable aliens who are removed may continue to pursue their petitions for review and those who prevail can be afforded effective relief by facilitat constitutional claim or benefit from a favorable judicial ruling the court's review is based on the record in written briefs rather than person testimony by policy and practice the government records aliens who approved pending judicial review but then refile before the court but then removed affective relief by facilitating the aliens returning to the united states if relief is a court so i think that pretty much right there's no historical facts either coming from michael and no that's not what they said they said yes they did they disagree with your assertion that there are no to speed facts and then  mentioned that it's not true that she will be tortured that's what he said and i wrote it down so so he does disagree with you on the right but what the disagreement is is that in sifting all the facts amid legal conclusion as to whether she would be torture with the acquiescence of of the government that is correct but there are no historical facts either of what ms morales said or support the government's position as to the ultimate legal question that's exactly what was going on and alvarado in upper right of the question was for immigration purposes purposes the agenda be legitimacy of the aliens marriage and this court said yes there are some facts that would support the government's position that the that the marriage was not legitimate and there were some other facts that do support the legitimacy but it's not our where a jury might be asked to decide whether there's a likelihood of future dangerousness by a particular person that's a factual determination not a legal one you're talk of and we're talking here about the likelihood of  of torture and it's been pointed out that she's been back twice and hasn't been tortured that's not a legal issue that's whether you want to target a historical fact or not it's still of it still it is a question of fact with no respect  it is the determination of the legal issue under the regulation whether there would be acquiesce and that's a matter of law and that's what this court held essentially an hour out on the floor and i think that's why the remain go to the same board member i don't know the answer to that you're on was a single board member of that which was a single board member and i believe it was a visiting judge so i thought i'm not sure that that's the case  all right if if you'd like thirty seconds to closure mary i just asked oh i do want to mention one other thing and we believe there are legal questions here and that's the court has jurisdiction and can reverse on our basis that the bases that we set placed under submission and we appreciate your willingness to take this on a pro bono basis and for your good work on behalf your time thank you last case for today