in fact i'd also like to bring to this court's attention the second circuit opinion in who's mongooses ashcroft which is just recently been reported which has followed this court's decision in saying and defining torture acquiescence requires really that the government turned a blind eye to the torture that's being inflicted by the individuals it's clear when you look back on the record here since the cantona convention it's torture was fairly new at the well this court rejected the case the cases relied upon by the i a e a and the department of homeland security here particularly the matter of ask for the interim decision and they also do rejected  one of his irrelevant for the purposes of one of the government officials reacting with a blind eye it doesn't matter what the government officials were intending in their own mind what matters according to congress is that they were turning a blind eye when they were aware of the torture type will do that's that's the key question for security i j concluded that's not the case because there's a large time lag between the incidents that are in the record and also that the group lost its power in one nine hundred ninety three with the advent of a new government or at least two other governments beyond that time there's no showing that the government of georgia is interested in armenians or wishes to hurt them or kill them so the i j a seems to have confronted the idea that there may have been problems in the past but there's a failure of proof on whether it's language which we're complaining about here that's the wrong standard for example it doesn't matter whether or not the government is interested in torturing or participating in this all that matters is that the government turned a blind eye when they willfully blind lesson passed that's what i'm trying to get at that's the past yes there may have been the other side is it possible that the other side can send him so yeah he was tortured twenty years ago and since then conditions of so changed that there's no reasonable possibility leave something out then lawyers try to tell us well they didn't consider that even though they did but here is that they mistreated him and stole this ambulance but that was nine years ago they responded to miss that he has a blanket of nine years around and he lived in that country without incident except through his what i'm saying first of all your honor is that's not a matter for this court to consider that's a matter for the b i e to consider because the but i don't understand what you mean when you say that i mean you brought a petition for review yes now we're reviewing we're looking at the evidence and what the   there have been significant changes the country reports from two thousand which were in the records under the ethnic minorities section do not indicate that there is currently persecution or more torture  government and it's disappeared the other side says that's exactly why it's a worse problem because the people responsible for the torture here now are out there is a rogue group they are part of the government how we're supposed to contend with that well you names no other individuals who were hedrick former head remembers who had become part of the government with respect to his brother in law he testified when asked why was his brother in law be after him that the brother in law and the that the police were acting in fear of a heavy only that there were officers who would not even wear the uniform during that time because they were afraid of the head reality which was sort of a de facto authority at the time it just strikes me that he was afraid that they once and that started just this avalanche of problems he didn't seem to be afraid enough that he didn't steal the ambulance back from i mean a focus on monstrosity group like this stole something from me i doubt that i'd be this country in september of ninety three he filed us and some outpatient in november of ninety three in which he advised generalized discrimination he described his activities in armenia where he was part of a group called the armenian revolutionary front the you can see the immigration judge really getting it's an oral decision put on the record and the immigration judge really getting to the nexus and the point of his his judgment he says well maybe a thousand years from now they'll be conflicts that whether or not the government was systematically or in any way physically or mentally businessperson for whatever reason has not been shown to me this thing arm was missing the government need not systematically torture someone you just need to really turn a blind  acquiesced acquiesce so let's jump up to the beginning of that paragraph to respond to his notch on that is more likely than not that he would be injured in any way if he were really were to return to georgia he has not shown he would be injured physically or mentally if he were to return to georgia by the government or by groups that the government factions or a group whose action the government would acquiesce in i read that as the blind eye language yes but the but he says it right there that you cannot stop at that point your honor you have to jump to the next part of mean it's different that's correct your honor and that's our position that acquiescence is something just turning your back turning a blind eye while knowing that it is going on and it's our contention that the immigration judge nor