may please the court my name is lisa china and i represent the petitioner the scarf c n n as a thirty eight year old mexican citizen she is the mother of two lawful permanent children and three u s citizen children requesting that this court remand her case to the immigration judge so that she may pursue her claim of fear of persecution torture based on her very severe mental health disability miss garcia was unable to raise the in the administrative proceedings be low due to the ineffectiveness of her prior turn today i'd like to focus on three issues of prior counsel number one being that prior counsel failed to properly raise garcia that she was on the standard of review is that the board of immigration appeals committed a legal error and abuses discretion in one holding that prior counsel was ineffective testimony from miss garcia regarding her mental however the department of homeland security objected and the immigration judge sustain the objection because party counsel had failed to lay a proper foundation we also know that prior medical records also show that miss garcia expressed the very thought of deportation as her great anxiety we also know that prior counsel possessed the two thousand and seventeen human rights report she did submit portions of this report say and her lawyer ms smith where i assume time and money were not unlimited yes your honor and ms smith seemed as if i recall what i've read about her testimony said that she thought basically the better way to go she was aware of the mental health issues but thought that the better way to go was to emphasize the danger posed by drug cartels we've had cases in which we have  we meandered because of the evidence about the danger of drug cartels in the white particularly in mexico and that that was basically a more promising route it sounds like if we adopt your theory tell me if i'm why i may be wrong about this that the the person subject to removal here basically gets to try plan a with one warrior and if that doesn't work try again with plan b by with one of the concerns i have about this case has to do with the issue of relocation with the i understood the immigration judge in the original yes your honor and so the context of the widespread presence of men in cartels and the context tells being sophisticated and working with corrupt government officials simply was not argued in front of  judge therefore the relocation issue it seemed as though it was a you know a private issue between family of a brother selling his sister a drug dealer who he owed money to it it was not raised before the immigration judge i'm sorry i'm yeah no that's exactly right the cartel issue is it was not for the immigration judge well it was cartels that that should apply even of the petitioner hasn't specified the cartel situation because of our current observation of what's going on in mexico well good morning may it please the court kate taliban for the government this case concerns consolidated two petitions for review one concerns underlying merits to terminations by the agency   nd one because i think it's the more important issue in the case and i think judge fons question as related to cat relates to the entire ineffective assistance of counsel case basically what we have here is the tough issue is that yes there was evidence of mental illness and yes under quest you can make out a case for future persecution  persecution based on mental illness but that's not what the alien in this instance communicated in the credible fear interview it's not the fear that she articulated and i think that in order to rule the that that council was deficient in some way you would have to say that attorney the prior attorney needed to put words into the mouth of the petitioner the petitioner said in the credible fear interview there's specific part of that interview that relates to nexus which is the on account of prong and the question is asked is there any other basis on which you fear returned to mexico and she said no so based on that going to judge hamilton's point given that there are time and money  constraints the prior attorney in the affidavit stated quite clearly she didn't pursue that she didn't pursue that and i didn't find a case precisely with this set of facts but i think it flows and the only and i noted that judge burt very interested in prejudice the only prejudice issue here is relates to the bond which clearly there was no prejudice so we see it because of her mental health situation and but if the attorney was aware of it perhaps in this case she should have at least advance that it's tough an interesting question and i understand from the record that the attorney was speak the husband about the mental issue and i think the attorney was interested in the mental health issue not so much as a basis for future fear as an independent nexus basis but as it might have accumulated and made the future fear of her prior person so i think she investigated and i think she looked at it that the few that on account of truong is hard to make out the mental illness the case law in the in this circuit and even in the th circuit shows that you have to exhibit mental illness to the extent that you could become a target of a future person so it's a tough case to make out anyway given that she didn't articulate or her husband didn't arky articulated the the only the only thing that petitioner can argue now is that the the attorney prior tourney should read that in and pressed it and i think that is not in keeping with strickland ordinals in terms of precedent in this case also prepared to answer any questions that you have about the think their prior czerny's post hoc rationale that she considered it and in her reasonable professional opinion ruled that claim out is inconsistent with her prior actions she did include the mental dead end hayes why would she have taken these actions she also had that department of state human rights report the department of state thought it was significant enough to talk about the widespread abuse and mistreatment that people who had mental health disabilities were suffering in if it were such a strain that she would fear persecution why would the department of state have included that in their human rights report in addition she did it she brought up mr c a brought up her mental health illness at the reasonable for your interview and that was an interview that she had