left with the judge's decision on revealed it to me again the government contends that this court does not have jurisdiction over the matter we do contend that it does have jurisdiction precisely because we say that the judge made the stating that pro se aliens should be given a little bit more leniency or at least understanding that they are not sophisticated and right but if nothing is raised at all how do we give them a little more oh he didn't really is where he said that credibility issue and he clearly stated that the police in billy's will turn me over to the drug dealers and then i will be torturing killed he's been tortured and killed by the drug dealers and having that evidence in front of him the immigration judge clearly said there is no nexus between the police government and these persecutors or these drug dealers and i think that that's clearly contrary to the evidence it's not even a question the evidence this is a fact establishing clearly that there is a nexus and then the immigration judge said there is no nexus so that is why i believe it's a due process error and mr ferguson did not have government and these drug dealers he also said besides there's no evidence that the government of police is in the wholesale business it was not the government was the police of police were in the wholesale business of turning over  people such as mr ferguson to the drug dealers and again that is contrary to the evidence and mr ferguson stated it would happen and it did happen to his brother in the case of mistaken identity so it did happen plus the country reports showed that there is a corruption in the police department of police and that they are experiencing problems with this and that they have had to there were several noted incidents of where police corruption had gotten in the way of long forstmann and certainly i have read that statement by the immigration just to be a little bit different so maybe you can help me out i read into first say you know i've really seen the evidence and i don't actually see a connection between these three guys the bad guys will call and anybody who is a public official and then i thought he was trying to help them or it and he says and addition i don't have evidence you know if we can't connect it up more specifically we don't even see any evidence here that there's some wholesale problem where i could kind of rely on a global situation not just of global corruption but the fact that people turn over the police their turn informants over to drug traffickers just like feeding him to the alligators or something so i think i read that actually is an effort by the immigration judge to to try to accommodate the fact that there wasn't any specific evidence so he was trying to look even further to see if there was something else why isn't that a fair reading of the statement well i think this is the his decision is not entirely clear to begin it's very short and there's not much discussion to be in trouble because the decision to short write the a travel with about eighty percent of our members so it's really only a couple of sentences here that we have to work with and  happen and has happened in the past and the judge right off the bat said there is no nexus despite the nexus insisting then the judge went on to say like you pointed out your honor that the government of police is not in the whole sale business for whatever purpose he added that statement and i still contend that that is wrong because the statute i'm sorry the regulation on the requires that a government official be the actor here and it was members of the police department plus the police department are corrupt it does fit in the country reports so even even if we were going to just focus on that statement by the judge in another itself i would contend that that's incorrect in light of the evidence that the police department is in the holster not wholesale business but the police department has been shown to be corrupt in the least but the fact that the police department may be corrupt isn't that a different issue than whether police turn over informants to drug trafficker i'm not sure just in the nature of the question if you know about seventy percent or more of the country report we look at criminals that's quite a different thing isn't it i think you're seeing on of the here we do have the example that it did happen when his brother went back to police they did turn his brother over to the drug traffickers so it's not just speculation on but he did get a letter from his cousin that he submitted to the board of immigration appeals that said the drug trap drug traffickers are still looking for you and so there is still interest find the drug traffickers in killing  him combined with the fact that they had used the police in the past and there's no indication that the police force has been cleaned up that it's likely that they will continue to use these practices and to seek him out and  find him when he lands at the airport his testimony went on to indicate that police is very small in the record indicated also that there's only one flight in and out of the united into beliefs from the united states for weeks it be very easy for the police department to keep track of incoming visitors and be able to find him and turn him over to the drug dealers  mr ferguson and i'd like to reiterate that it was the credible testimony and i acknowledge that he was not able to get a lot of crime documents but the judge in his decision in a way seemed to indicate that he may not have carried his burden due to a lack of corroborating documents again the judge did not come out and say i find this testimony confusing the judge did not come out and say i don't know what to believe or that i find you incredible but yet she said you don't have letters from your brother to corroborate this you don't have letters from the inglewood police department to corroborate that you were in fact a informant for them to begin with i c wasn't necessary because there was no adverse credibility finding in the question as to his credibility or the possibility of the other ones but even if this court were so inclined to go down that road he wasn't able to get this evidence and he adequately explain why not he was incarcerated again like i said for a long time he lost a lot of contact with people on the outside including his brother he submitted lengthy documentary evidence about his  whole impairments so he's operating under a bit of a deficit to begin with and he was not able to get the evidence from the police department it was over twenty years ago they weren't able to pull up the records without more specific information jurisdiction now i can hear and i'm not arguing that i believe the adequately raised the issues of error in how the judge the i was able to review the judge's decision and determine whether or not he had adequately assess adopt the judge's opinion so it's quite possible that the b i even had considered these issues on its review and just instead decided that they grieve the conclusion or the results that the judge reached so i don't believe that would prevent this cour are sure of it the cops the cops tell him yes but you have to look this into the fact that the i think he's considering the entire evidence he's also considering the state department report that says that yes there and and based on the fact that he needed to stand there and that he had dressed every specific plane there's there's indication that he obviously did now with respect to the pointing to if the court has any questions i just want to reiterate that as the issue rose up when counsel was arguing there is a difference between the judge stating the standard that he's going to apply and then whether he actually does apply that standard and here the results clearly show that the between the drug dealers and the government police that's not true that's just contrary to the facts that was the police force that has a connection with the drug traffickers well he does he although he doesn't say we're dealing with stale information that something will happen to your might happen to you when you return is damaged by the fact that the information is old i disagree with that your honor and we are limited by what the judge actually did state a lot of judges just reiterate the facts prior to making their decision  restatement of the facts and here in his decision portion he makes no mention of law and that he doesn't refer to all to the evidence being older stale he just says it's not it's not and i disagree i think in the part where he's discussing the otherness where he's actually perhaps analyzing it if you want to call it that he doesn't make any reference to the age of the evidence he just he just says there is no nexus and he fails to follow that if that was his trust the judge did not state that was his reason for denying the claim and therefore that that can't be that speculative at this point can't be used at this point to read into what the judge actually meant when he failed to state what he so now what we're talking about in terms of time and that sort of thing that's just how the evidence was weighed or might have been away correct it could be that we're more saddled with the immigration judge's decision because that was the  is adopting the judge's decision and that's correct that's not necessarily each i mean if it so at the judge's decision is supported by the evidence and if and i'm not saying there isn't one here but if there's not a legal reasoning behind the decision and b i has adopted the reasoning of the judge by adopting the decision they may not have used that reasoning but they have chosen and i think even one case from this court states that there's  by the conclusion that he came to which was had to think if i ignore him that evidence that was there and he didn't even properly in his decision he did not seem to explain why what his