i hear failed to properly apply the clear error standard because it did not grapple with the of adventure record or explain why the immigration judge's findings were not even plausible as is required under this court's decisions individually will deteriorate as to his mental health upon removal and that he will therefore be at risk of the torture that frequently befalls marginalized parties with mental illness in mexico nd the b i did not address the specific intent findings that discrimination motivates ongoing abuses and that inherently harmful practices like rapes and beatings are pervasive nor did the b i address key evidence like the state department country report and reports of the united nations instead the just offered a perfunctory citation to the decade old decision in vegas and made broad overgeneralizations the same mode of reasoning that this court rejected in re dor ultimately the be i ultimately the immigration judge aggregated the risks that mr get i will be tortured by police and in mental health institutions and found a probability of torture do just walk through it until it's in your view where there is here yes where is the where the board either failed to engage in clear air review or made factual determination which i can't do correct so i would start with the nd paragraph on a r five that's st assuming the respondent will face criminal detention so they are said that the record does not support the immigration judges determination that the respondent faces a clear probability of being tortured as a result of a criminal of attention so what was wrong with that's so the st thing that's wrong with it is that there's no citation to some aspect of the record that outweighs what the immigration judge did the  thing that's wrong with it is it doesn't engage with any of the reasoning that the immigration judge provided in her decision i'm obviously i'm going to walk through the b i a decision but of course it needs to be read to some degree in tandem with the immigration judges actual findings here and here the immigration judge for this point cited a variety of evidence but wasn't part of the problem that the immigration judge cited to a swath of records at one time so it was difficult to pinpoint precisely what the immigration judge was relying upon and i think that kind of fostered the difficulty in the board decision but i think the government emphasizes that point in its brief but this court has said that the immigration judge is not obligated to write an exit jesus on every contention it's only obligated to explain its decision and the reasons for its decision but isn't it fair to have the immigration judge cite precisely to the record that it's relying upon to support its conclusions i don't think so here the immigration judge cited a variety of sources in the record because a variety of sources in the record supported her reasoning so for example in this point about whether the respondent will be tortured by police and government detention she described mr get as individual eyes conditions and at that point in her decision she did cite very specific aspects of the record she primarily relied on the psychological evaluation of dr jean christmas to talk about how mr get out is mentally ill he will present as mentally ill and he will deteriorate further if he is removed then on but that doesn't address the point of torture that the conditions that he would encounter would be intentionally designed to inflict punishment upon him well i think there's two findings that are that are in dispute here i understood the your honour's question to be referring to the probability of torture by police but i'm happy to discuss th punishment in torture which was the strongest document in the record to support the ajay's ruling i think the strongest document is tab k of exhibit fourteen it's a report of disability rights international from two thousand and fifteen and it describes how some of the abuses that are perpetrated in these mental health institutions like beatings like rapes like the use of prolonged physical restraints are clearly being used with the intent to inflict severe pain and stuff like page of the record is that it begins at page seven hundred and four of the record and the immigration judge properly relied on that decision because it describes the kind of abuses that this court has recognized evinced specific intent on their face so for example in new rule against gonzalez this court described a situation in which an individual was tied up for a period of twenty days twenty five days was  beaten was given very small rations of food and the court didn't do a separate inquiry into intent it recognized that those abuses on their face showed specific intent i think the same kinds of abuses are present in the record here and the immigration judge relied on them and her decision when she said that employees of mental health institutions carry out actions that qualify as torture under the convention against torture so a r a a r seven hundred and four there is a specific description of rapes sexual abuses and also a prolonged physical restraints i would point out that these prolonged physical restraints are not the sort of the benevolent restraints that might be administered for a brief period in a hospital setting instead these are stories of individuals being tied up for years at a time forced to urinate and defecate on themselves without any supervision while they clearly expressed pain as a result of these practices those practices on their face show specific intent but the immigration judge found another reason for the specific intent as well she talked about the widespread systemic discrimination in mexico against individuals with mental illness and she talked about how the government has failed to take action to end torture us practices and abuses in mental health institutions over a period of longer than a decade so there were two specific parts to the immigration judges finding  specific intent the be i didn't so much as mention the word discrimination in its decision it didn't engage with these specific findings and i think that's not enough to meet the standards set out by this court in rodriguez and  failure to explain why it found clear error is that it doesn't cite any evidence that conflicts with the evidence relied upon by the immigration judge instead it actually cites some eighteen pages of the record which as this court kno voluminous in this case and those eighteen pages are actually from the three reports of disability rights international one of which i just mentioned tab k the other two is are out the other two are tabs l and  to the contrary and the cord more weight to country reports in the record that she did not find persuasive so is the is the board there we re weighing the evidence weighing the evidence and what's more it's not even giving an x i mean it's not permitted to reweigh the evidence under the clear air or standard but what's more it says that it accorded more weight to country reports in the record that she did not find persuasive it doesn't identify watch those country reports where it only cites in the following paragraph three reports that the immigration judge heavily relied on for her findings it doesn't cite for example the state department country report which the immigration judge squarely relied on so i think it the guy is really weighing the evidence and it's also not even telling us what these country reports are ok let me ask you this if you were to prevail here what's the relief you're asking for so we think the best course in doesn't that mean the board should then redo the it's decision in light of what the correct law is the court could find in its discretion that every man has the appropriate course here but i want to point the court to in both of those cases the immigration judge found that there was a likelihood of torture justifying relief under the convention against torture this court reminded to the v i i i with an order to grant relief because it recognised that there was a substantial likelihood that the immigrant would be tortured if he were removed i think that's the case here ok thank you thank you we'll hear from the government good morning your honour's managing on behalf of the u s attorney general made please the court in this case the board properly found clear in the id's factual findings when she determined that petitioner showed a clear probability of being tortured by mexican police in detention and also the specific intent of health care workers in mental institutions and institutions to inflict severe pain and suffering the board properly explained basis for rejecting these findings as clearly erroneous because they were unsupported by the record and therefore unreasonable and to address your honor's st point about looking into the boy's decision in paragraph two starting with the sentence st assuming you had asked for a citation to the record because the board finds at the record does not support the immigration judges determination that he faces a clear probability of being tortured there is no citation because there is no document in the record that would support the factual finding for this it would be to cite to an absence of therefore there it does not exist additionally the regulations are very clear that petitioner must establish that he is more likely than not to be the victim of conduct resulting in consequences which are specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain and suffering an act that results in an interest paid or unintended severity of pain and suffering is not torture now while there is documentation in the record that conditions in mental institutions are deplorable or rather appalling this does not equate to specific intent and this court has found that in vegas and further it upheld that finding find that it dysfunctional prison system in itself equates to or requires a grant of protection of the convention under cap did you think he's generally here in the system in essence isn't that the board just there rejecting with the i j a did to some extent what is the board doing there this statement is addressing the fact that there was a lack of evidence in a finding of clear probability of and the board is has assessed the record industry tallit and discovered that as i j stated the conditions in prisons are not ideal minute when he is detained by police the evidence to show that prison conditions are not ideal they are appalling there deplorable and especially for people who suffer from mental health conditions not necessarily the record shows that the police do inflict beatings and other physical harm upon detainees to coerced confessions but that is not the circumstance that petitioner is now so before you i want to take you to that the paragraph that begins with the words nd and again that last sentence we find a clear air in immigration judges determination of the contrary in accord more weight two country reports in the record that she did not find pursue persuasive how can the board do that so this was just poor phrasing to a certain extent in order to assess what the board is saying here we need to look at the full context of this paragraph in the decision and it's clear that the board was looking for the whole record for clear error in that sense that any factual finding the findings of the i j a have to be a logical implausible or you can't the inferences are not supported by the infant by the by the record evidence and you know that's the standard that they've adopted we said that's the standard they're to apply so in looking at heart you know ice your argument is that well that's obviously what they were doing but it's not entirely clear to me that that's what they were doing well it's hard in this context because it doesn't exist in the record so it's hard to compare and contrast the immigration judges finding with how the board is determining it's clearly erroneous if it's if there's an absence in the record but if the sentence is implying or stating more so that because it's not in the record there is actually countervailing evidence of country conditions that show otherwise and so if we go back to  petitioner mentioned within there there is statements that the d r i st documented these problems in two thousand and then following the release of that report the government of mexico brought these concerns of people with disabilities to the un and sponsored a resolution to draft a new un convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and by sponsoring this mexico made an important contribution to international law and rights of persons with disabilities so there were looking at positive evidence that goes contra reeling to what the i g found that that there is evidence that there is a specific intent to harm rather there's a countervailing point that mexico is actually making attempts to improve the situation and this court has found in cases that such attempts to improve actually undermine the specific intent requirement in the convention against torture so let me ask you one last i have one last question for you which is the last sentence the bottom of page three of the would be  begins well these practice is can result in in the inhumane treatment of patients humana face manifest symptoms that staff members might perceive as dangerous we find clear air in the gaze finding that the evidence in the record show that such behavior is carried out to punish patients for being dangerous in light of the countervailing country evidence highlighting persuasive alternative reasons for institutional abuses this is it isn't the board just re weighing the evidence now again this is another finding that is not substantiated in the record there is no documentation that punish but there they look at the record evidence and they say well i j did this look at this but in light of this other stuff which we find more persuasive we think that's the correct you know that's what i just should have relied upon but isn't that just sort of looking at the evidence and saying we weigh in and say well we're going to go with this one actually your honor that's not the situation because in this case it's not one versus the other it's the absence of any evidence to support the decision versus something that's well here in the record there must have been some evidence in the record here we that would be in contradiction to the immigration judges finding that was based in the absence of any record of evidence and so if we look at the record itself the characterization of dangerous comes from a new york times article which quotes an advocate for the mentally ill who is not a health care worker himself as stating that people have prejudices and these people are dangerous however that does not suffice to show a person purpose which is necessary to meet con the definition of torture under the regulations and so based on such a small quote within a document that is  have not provided any documentation or support in this record for this finding however the countervailing country condition reports show otherwise which is what the board is trying to highlight here and even if we look just flipping through these documents we see that there is evidence that the staff lacked supervision they lack funds they lack resources and these are clearly documented however there is no documentation hunnish meant as a prescribe i'll be brief the government excuses the lack of citation to any evidence and the record by saying that there was no record support for the immigration judge's findings respectfully that's plain from the face of the immigration judge decision that that is not true the immigration judge cited a great deal of evidence some of it she quoted in some cases she cited ranges of evidence because multiple sources support her findings so for that reason i i don't think it's sufficient to say that the b i didn't cite anything because there was no record support for the immigration judges finding it's plain from the face of the immigration judge's decision the not true nd the government defend the notion that  found that mexico is trying to improve conditions in mental health institutions the b i a didn't cite any specific evidence on that point and in fact the immigration judge found as was plausible that although the government has made promises of reform conditions on the ground haven't actually changed for all of these reasons we asked the court to remain to the v a and direct it to grant relief thank you say ten minutes it will take time to break the audience of some members the i'm going to leave and we need we need to check in with our tech department will be a ten minute recess