for example on the administrate of record page three away it says that the police lacked laws preventing mob that the the police state that the individuals in the same article it says to make in laws against loitering or used as pretext by police to detain men who do not conform to gender roles and although those men are rarely prosecuted under the laws of jamaica that prohibit homosexual acts gay and bisexual men who are our did through arrest risk of violence and other abuse by community arrested and then they're outed to the public so they are acquiescing they are participating in the outing of gay and bisexual men and knowing that the consequences that these yes there isn't the same article says it minister to record to ninety two in spite of the procedures the government has put in place it cannot protect against violence and discrimination and under the standards set forth inc when telos and mari it is not whether or not they're making progress to protect individuals the question is can they protect individuals not protected let me just let me just pick up on this i mean there's debate of that that says you know reports of generalized thank you palate don't suffice i mean so so i mean it one level but to seek redress under the convention something you know just generalizations don't suffice do they i don't believe these are generalizations are they tied to their time is really a big individual no they don't ha me about that mid range because it goes it one up there in a very broad level but but they are tied to this individual so that they aren't super specific and you're also telling me that they are generalizations so they seem to be following somewhere in the middle talk to me about that middle well we know my client left jamaica when he was sixteen years old so specifically he doesn't have an adult history of being a gay man or bisexual man in jamaica but what what the country conditions show is that the actions of the government either in failing to put laws in place that protect gay people against violence and the police failing to protect individuals the police actually perpetrating violence against individuals or the police outing people through rassmann all these things create the government acquiescence that is that we are arguing will subject him to  torture and more likely than not torture isn't that the standard yes it is more likely than not and to show that he would be subjected to more likely than not torture and i guess the flip side of that is it's a substantial evidence standard so what about the decision is deficient under that standard but i think this we are not here today because this case is about whether or not you are not signing whether or not gay men in jamaica are universally going to be more likely than not subjected to torture the question here today is when  the immigration judge reviewed the evidence and did they apply the proper standards and the standard is that when you look at acquiescence you have to and this is you know recently under my re and under can tell us you have to consider whether or not the government can protect the person now certainly what i can't stand here today and give you a as we just discussed in the previous argument i can't say what will happen to my client but the evidence below shows that there's a perv ace's the culture of treating gay men and bisexual men with violence and that the police and the government by failure to administer laws and control the violence is the is the information that you refer to for example in the country report two hundred and ninety two is that anecdotal is a that it's pervasive well so when i find interesting is that what i'm citing to is exactly the report that the government cited to or that agency cited to in determining that there wasn't but it is primarily their findings and some of it's anecdotal but i'm not i haven't pulled you know one off or that what you just cited from the government port that there is persecute or people that the government in effect does not help cannot protect against violation yes decision it has so far failed to prevent and protect against violence and discrimination because it failed to punish the public so so let me just follow up on that because because i asked this question earlier about how much is this specific and how much of this is general and it strikes me that at least as i hear it a lot of this is very general so let me ask you a question about scale ability let's let's say we go with your argument let's say we agree with your argument wouldn't agreeing with your argument mean that every single bisexual meal who was subject to removal to jamaica would qualify for the convention my but i guess my point is if those generalizations work for your client what stops them from working for every similarly situated person to your client i think that every person will need to to show proof and so what proof has your client showed that it would be more likely than not that he would be tortured if he was removed the evidence that we show is that this pervasive culture is so so so i'm getting it there's nothing unique to your claim it's a pervasive culture therefore that pervasive culture if used in every other case would be in a basically an across the board rule right  i'm looking what is it that would be individualized to your client situation not there's just this pervasive culture in jamaica in maybe the answer is i don't need we your client doesn't need individualized proof maybe say look the situation is so bad there that everyone who is similar to him while pfeiffer convention before i have any friends are going to say yeah i think you know if we know that there was a country that said that everyone with blond hair is go be persecuted and i didn't have any connection to that country and i was being sent there under the convention against torture you can't do that because i have to prove i have blond hair i have to prove that i can't tell you know all those things i have to go through my proofs but you can't just send me there so so the so if we go through the proof from your client it seems that your client is proving that he a bisexual male should have adopted the analysis on their miley which will quires them to not only consider whether there was government acquiescence but whether or not the government could protect them and its project there was an extensive analysis of the record that's not the you can't say that here and the other case they found that the individual was not credible so you know we can't say that there's going to be a blanket rule from this case lengthy decision but when it came to the cut reports as ok there are cut reports that when it comes to the deferral removal under cat it's on pages one  were reports of generalized brutality within a country did not necessarily show that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on his or her return eligibility of captive for all cannot be established by stringing together a series of suppositions to show th torture is more likely than not to occur i'm not even quite sure but that means d if you do get that series of suppositions why wouldn't show that particular person's case so it it isn't necessarily that mr right when it's just that i don't see the discussion by the hi jay of the country reports and why they do not necessarily show oneself then you need to prove every piece every chain every link in the chain and each link needs to be established by at least a likelihood of success right so here that link would be that evidence type of standard because the claim is based on generalized reports and so i bring this up in the context of requests you're representing this person what would you have to show to say that wait a minute i'm going back into a really nasty situation i haven't been there in a long term but it doesn't look good for me because of my sexual identity that that's right your honor what you would need to show is very difficult when you  can come forward with all kinds of country report evidence to suggest the climate is so bad that it is incredibly unlikely that he will not be tortured it doesn't matter because it's not specific to him i think that's close to what the government's saying what the government is mathematical certainty that anybody in a particular class of persons who is protected would not even be taking classes don't get they are can show is going to be tortured i'm not sure what you're saying about generalities no not or and you're to be clear in that hypothetical and forget mathematical certainty you're talking about just likelihood but just likelihood we're talking about fifty one percent or more and i point is the way case law comes out on this from both this circuit and others it it is very difficult to show that you face a likelihood of torture set aside acquiescence for now just prospects of future harm it is very difficult to show that you face a likelihood of torture based on background evidence so we don't need to establish anything as general versus the civic all we are saying is that when you have not been to a country so take that hypothetical it's not that i hear right this individual left jamaica thirty years ago at the age of sixteen he does not allege that there's any harm and he threats of harm specific to him from jamaica since that time and has expressly disclaimed and you were lions based on past experiences in jamaica did disclaim that in the reply brief on page six so they are very much alleging based purely country reports however general or specific they're alleging based purely on those country reports and the general evidence in jamaica that he faces in likelihood of torture and so on let me follow up on and judge mckee's question if i'll give you two options the st option is the country report says one hundred percent of bisexual men face torture in jamaica option two is a country report says amazing we've got mathematical certainty and forty percent bisexual men face torture in jamaica those are generalizations but why don't you why don't you tell me with one hundred percent suffice for of bisexual males face torture in jamaica sure that that's good enough to at least get us down the road to acquiescence right if the agency reads that evidence and there's obviously going to be other commitment in the event assume the credit all that absolutely if it's fifty five percent of it's own and answer the forty question to answer the forty percent question or and forty percent looking at them that would not be enough but even forty percent might be enough if then there is some additional evidence that that person specifics on time so then isn't so so then i mean it seems that your opponent has this quite it seems to be her strongest point is that something is missing from the b i e s decision and what seems to be missing from the b i e s decision is whether that country specific report is closer to one hundred percent or closer to forty percent or some other number so does that doesn't the b s a have to kind of handicap that so that we can know and if they don't consider that then isn't that what remained is built on you know your honor and i think it's very important to separate out the two components of the cat analysis here both so acquiesce you can speak your likelihood a few future torture and they can speak to whether or not the government might acquiesce in that torture i think when you are relying solely on that evidence to establish both of those problems and especially on the speak about the future of the likelihood of future harm it is very difficult to get above that fifty percent and to your specific point here we usually simply don't see the agency or courts quanta find that you see them taking the evidence determining based on that evidence of country reports and articles about the conditions faced by here the l g beauty community and saying this is not a likelihood of a future torture and that's exactly what we have here so i don't think it is a failure of the agencies analysis to not have quantified it using the numbers as long as the agency says we've looked at it and it's not likely that's good enough short i mean and i don't think that is what the agency has set or your honor i think the agency took exactly whedon's was presented to it and that that's not just the lack of evidence that this person in the country obviously has nobody disputes that it's also and i think this is important when you get to the sufficiency of the agency's analysis point there was not a single piece of evidence from the country  there was a general claim that country reports are bad for jamaica but otherwise petition a lot in other things before the board and that sort of standard for sufficiency of the agency's decision is when this court reviews it is this court assured that the agency has thought  evidence and not merely reacted well when the evidence put before the board is simply that country conditions are bad the board looks at that evidence the board views all of it and here to be very very clear the immigration judge specifically every single exhibit in the record including the country conditions evidence and what it did said regardless of whether or not it referred to it but didn't really eliza at all i mean the problem is when you look at j searching for right we know that can't be because no one searching for this time has been there and he resists to that respondent will somehow be identified as bisexual that he will be apprehended by the authorities and they will then be tortured by the jamaican government he has not responded has not demonstrated that each of the events of this is hypothetical or more likely than not to take place when it can't be this the series that we have here i mean it just doesn't make sense it's not logical he hasn't been there are that's right and i believe that's part of the government's point is that we don't have someone who's been there and has some established basis for fearing future harm himself so but you know relying on comes from what you have to rely on or are things like like country reports which are pretty carefully done but by the state department so in that context doesn't the i j a as good as she is and she's very careful normally doesn't she have to deal with it absolutely and but again that where jerry where she actually deal with those good reports in this particular opinion or your honor on the last page that you mention that i was finishing my my point about the evidence that she cited she specifically mentioned and this is an important point and important this court has relied on in green which is listed all the evidence talks testimony to documentary evidence including country parts articles and then specifically said whether or not listed in my decision it is clear that i have considered all of this evidence now directly to your point to your question judge member of the immigration judge and the board both specifically mentioned various different points in the country reports that said that the jamaican government has taken meaningful steps to reform with regard to its treatment b community including put didn't couldn't develop a new policies to guide police response to violence against that community to ensuring that reporting of crimes involves towards a community are reported and to intervening when such incidents occur now that we believe is more than sufficient that both of those of side of that evidence especially when considering again that the evidence that was put before in the arguments that were put before the board were simply a site generally to all of the country conditions evidence and the point i'm making right now is also consistent with how petitioners litigated this case from the beginning there was a general reference to country conditions before the board without specifying anything in particular and in the board rendered its decision and then before the court in petitioners opening brief there cited several different excerpts from the record that suggest the conditions are bad for the l g b to community in jamaica and then in their grief their on for a more of the evidence there's no question that evidence exists there's no question and to be very clear about the government's position here there is no question that conditions for the community in jamaica are not good but the question is whether the record supports the conclusion and compels it that the jamaican government would l if i can just pick up on or supplement that the i j a the very last part of her opinion says although the country the country conditions report highlights various societal abuses against crimes intervening with the crimes occur moreover it reports submitted by responders state that in general there is no real risk of state persecution as the authorities do not actively seek to prosecute the persons there is no real risk of prosecution even when the authorities become aware of such behavior therefore he that a right has not demonstrated government consent or acquiescence i mean what more can that is cherry picked from the very same report that i have cited several times in my own took it what would you cherry pick the other way what would you what would you suggest from that report post well i think standard they can't protect him and that's what's lacking in the i g report and also in the b i s report is that there's no analysis of how they she made the determination or in the board made the determination that this was not that this wasn't that he had not proved his case i think that the government relies on pace law but i'm not clear what that case law is you know it's very clear that the b i a and the immigration judge need to outline why they have rejected certain evidence especially in the same report and why they've come to that conclusion i also against the l g b community the reports also suggest that you could make up words if taken important steps to combat such abuse and then list them so i mean to the extent that you say that they should have kids they should have reached a different conclusion based on that evidence i get that but i don't know that you have a point that says they didn't account for that evidence well i think under miree and quinn taro's it says that you have to say why you reject the evidence in favor of the petitioner in the application why isn't this good enough because it really account for it and then they say you know although it is there are reports also suggest these other points and i mean maybe maybe i guess you could say that jay's opinion is missing the phrase you know and because the reports suggest these other points we've therefore reject sentence but i think there's quite a bit of evidence in the record to the contrary and not just that they have that there are general country condition concerns but to the contrary that the jamaican government cannot or will not whatever we decide maybe protect young individuals so if how we and i think what my  that if you're going to reject that evidence not she would not that i did knowledge a certain evidence but does not reject evidence that supports my current and my client  has you know there are strong evidence that needs to either be set forth in the record as to why it was not credible so so so does my re basically put the i j a in a position of responding to white and civil discovery requests for admission if there is if someone serves like forty requests for admission in the i j a only response to thirty then then there's a my re problem and it's either deemed admitted d or we have to remain for the would tell me that i'm wrong that that's not correct what it will say though is if the judge decides that she has a piece of evidence that says this and she has a piece of evidence that says this she has to say why she has rejected the favorable evidence does not have to go through everything that what when you screw very clear on that but you do have to say something as to why you picked page whatever sixteen of the report to cite rather than page twenty nine which supports my client especially in a case where it's my client's life at risk isn't this really come down to the to do that and the only thing that you're suggesting that she missed is that she didn't and in an obama the way the government has failed so far i think that you know we haven't even gotten into how this this opinion is essentially a rubber stamp what the government wanted and it basically took the government's oral argument what else is there besides the government has failed to remains in at an adequate that's two hundred and ninety two a r three hundred and forty two civil rights are not properly protected and respected gay and bisexual jamaicans are often denied access to protection under the law concern but they are used to justify violence toward l g b t people so the laws themselves instill violence so so let me just ask this if the phrase but then the next part of that sentence is and they're making progress and that's what they said in mari and they're making progress but my client is not going to be protected by progress my client needs to go if he's going to be sent home we have to be confident that he is not more likely than not going to be subjected to torture and the analysis is not there