homelessness inability to feed himself and frequent seizures and not being able to control those symptoms that include voice so without these medications the visible symptoms of talking and fighting with voice says not being able to you've probably heard of the kinds of a decision free we're looking here was the prospect of more likely than not in the end of experiencing or having the infection of order so each of those scenarios was what's and i think this is crucial the st step that he's going to have these symptoms about medication i don't see is going to come to the attention of the police so i think it's it is almost you know i know certain you're understood that she is going to be in the streets of his getting into trouble with addiction which he used to self medicate to be able to manage the symptoms of his illness before he was able to be treated with medication so that the record compels the conclusion that he will not that he will come to the attention of background his own background there is he had wanted him to them with a gang violence as a child and i'm not even sure that that was has anything to do with his that's all i'm trying to put together is that there are substantial evidence for review here so i look at the gangs look at what's been said and i look at the history i look at the police a recognize there were instances of humanity and humane treatment by the police however dr nichols said there's no data available regarding the harm by police to mentally disabled people and the best there's only eighteen cases of cruel inhumane treatment by the police so how can i say on a substantial evidence for a view that the police are going to be the problem it seems to me regarding the likelihood that it doesn't have to do with beta but if i'm honest substantial evidence review it seems to me that i've got no history necessarily and now i'm looking at what your expert says the data rissa jess i've got only eighteen cases of cruel inhumane treatment by police in all of what i've got and i'm supposed to say there's not any substantial evidence talking to people who have been abused by the police that evidence that is evidence in this court and called the holder recognize that an expert is talking about research studies personal observations and experiences  and that is one piece of the entire record in its totality that includes this likely ivan's of him coming into contact i would know to your honor the police the gaming and the national psychiatric hospital are not individual to they say they state this is a conclusion a does that sentence i just read you doesn't say this is the standard and moved on they stated a conclusion that he hasn't shown a likelihood of suffering torture even when all contention source of torture are considered in the agri now you may dispute what they have done but to say who is they didn't mean what they said and so they never considered what they just said they considered that's not a persuasive argument i guess what i'm saying is that's a catch all was wrong but what you argued in what i asked you about is evidence that they did not consider i don't hear any of it and i don't see anything that contradicts what they say so you can argue that substantial evidence may not support their hospital there's a difference between those two proper zation our court gets things wrong all the time i get things wrong all the time at least according to the supreme court nobody saying we're not thinking about it they think our thinking is wrong and in this case i think there's a clear distinction between whether the board consider and whether the board considered but didn't have substantial evidence to support so that's a distinction i think it's worth preserving i don't hear any support for the proposition i heard you to argue violations country conditions evidence dr nichols provides uncontested testimony to country conditions he's qualified as an expert on one hundred initials as they pertain to someone with it's an act of bipolar disorder and he testifies based on his studies and his research about the likelihood of torture and so in the totality of the other dence requiring data which doesn't exist and the reason that data doesn't exist is because the door does not have a mechanism to keep track of the treatment of people in the psychiatric institutions which as it has been criticized by the united nations or it after earlier that requiring mr klein to have to provide evidence that is not available and doesn't exist in order to meet that because of these symptoms and his psycho a fact of bipolar disorder he is likely to come to the attention end up at some point his life time in contact with the police in contact with require a greater than fifty percent chance that he would be tortured yes ok so it's not just more likely than not but he's got to show a greater than fifty percent chance more likely than not and there and compared to standing before the court today where the burden is on the petitioners in this identify record of events that compels the conclusion that more likely or not you will be tortured by any of the various actors identified below and it is in the conflict in evidence as to each of those actors that controls this case and places this outside of dr dr nichols testimony or is affidavit there isn't fact as the agency pointed out the evidence that comes against his opinions about the likelihood of torture and the fact that he's an expert doesn't introduced to render opinions about the likelihood of torture and the and the panel specifically in that case noted that it was permissible it was permitted i mean was there was permitted for the immigration judge to ultimately find against the experts recommendations based on competing evidence that was that was also in the record and that's what we have here dr nichols of peanut lee randon opinion about the likelihood of torture and of various on the one hand dr nichols believes it's more likely than not on the other hand the ombudsman who collapsed and who is the review is that the risk governmental receiver for such complaints reports only eighteen of those and those two portions of evidence are in tension the agency's choice between those two inferences drawn from that tension cannot be fair in this is the pattern that repeats itself it repeats itself with respect to the involuntary commitment claim that repeats itself respected the goal let me let me ask you to focus i mean there is evidence cited by the agency with regard to torture by the police is there anything comparable with regard to what would happen if he's committed to the psychiatric unit analysis of mental health the provision of health service in el salvador that that report notes that there were sixteen states psychiatric wards that were added to various hospitals throughout the country in an effort to sakit capacity and it was that this was a that explicit recognition by the salvador authorities that the national psychiatric hospital was overpopulated so their answer was not to just let it be but to take some could be in dispute is whether those are efficacious but you know the agency doesn't proceed in its analysis that far there's a finding of fact more beyond simply noting that the salver government has it seems to me if we read to be a decision b i a decision was concluding that the hypothetical chain resulting in abusive for possible abusive thing did not result in a greater than fifty percent chance that he would be tortured that's a direct drive their decision was more on that the chain was not in the present then the hand and they did that because the i j had found it was a lack of evidence on how the treatment would lay it rise to the level of torture because e t c was implemented only after other treatments for ineffective and elva salvatore was making efforts to protect a patients from e c g that's true and that is that all three are are and i think that substantial evidence supports that determination but i would point your attention to the record of three conclusion that the puzzle me so i'll put it to you and i think your your brief made a similar argument talking about government acquiescence but the hospital is the government institution  in treatment provided there is being provided by the government so i'm kind of puzzled as to how the conclusion can be well if these tortured history with the app was with the with the acquiescence of the government overall these are his words while hospitals attempting to channels out patients off of across the country reduce the size of its chronic illness improve the quality of the treatment dr nichols concludes that the progress is slow and hampered by ne is this is his word financial and political restraints that we see that same phrase hampered by political incident financial restraint and the immigration judge and government acquiescence now to absolutely correct acquiescence usually tied to a  party actor however the immigration judges explicit reliance on the egg and particularly which which really is the seminal case when it comes to evidence that shows or does not shows  torture because the court there is you know well know this thing which we journal and then and so we're going to torture but in just as in that case evidence that the government did not desire to torture because it was taking steps to improve squalor conditions in mexican mental health as to sions so to hear the i say points to efforts by the salvador government to improve the condition which from which the immigration judge  find evidence of the salvadoran government does not specifically intend to torture its patients and so the rationale of the judge winds up cleanly with the rationale makes plain that the immigration judge is hanging his finding on or on v h s itself which is relevant here for its specific intent holding if i've answered your question well i take it that he winds up ultimately expressing his conclusion in terms of government assistance and i hear you're urging us to view that to go back a step and say it's really talking about intent to inflict torture on the separate issue of acquiescence understand when your brief argues but is there really a basis to conclude that  acquiescence does it issue given that it's a government hospital the real question is whether the government in running this hospital intends to inflict what we've seen to be torture i agree i think that i think that is the issue is there specific intent to torture i also believe that the immigration judge answers that squarely with its with his residence with his reliance and  has made clear in cases following day as either way there there must be someone in the chain of acting in the chain of actors that specifically intense the conflicts of your are not just intensity at this consequence garda government would acquiesce to the respondents torture acquiescence and specific intent are two distinct issues and i think it would be improper for this court to him infer that what the judge really meant when the judge that   substantial evidence that compels a conclusion that's not accurate regarding the police torture of the agency really cherry picked this eighteen reports of torture by the police and