for me please the court but in this case your services comprise a pete persons with serious mental disability who come into contact with mexican law enforcement we require to receive treatment mexican mental health facilities operated by the next government in this case  my clients and it will evidence that he does suffer from severe mental illness bipolar schizophrenia and that he will not have the adequate treatment soon what would what would you have us do in this case what your client's criminal history have any relevance to the issues in front of us today may have some relevance to whether or not relief is eventually granted by the b i have but it isn't relevant at all to the issues before us today not not asylum or withholding perhaps not cap relief but i'm just trying to figure out whether it's relevant to any issue in front of us today i don't think it is but i will i want to ask the government the same question no you are just just be a bit something a social group which would be s criticism that the evidence surely record isn't specific enough to basically create a record of credible fear of persecution so you have a letter indicating that his home town doesn't provide sufficient mental health treatment right there so how does that impact his fear of persecution impacts that would be the first let's assume you've established that that people with mental health problems face persecution if returned to mexico because of the way institutions work but i thought the evidence was that there there wasn't such an institution in your client's hometown my right as a person so why does he have a particular riced fear that he will be subject to this kind of persecution because of the generalized kind of conditions which we submitted with the  with the motion to reopen the conditions are such that even like forceful about unease you know i take i take it all to be true for purposes of this that there's terrible persecution going on of people with mental disease in mexico my question is one is how does your client what your client showing of his particular life fear i know he suffers from mental disease but at least the evidence in this record seems to be that the place where he lives the area where he lives doesn't have one of these bad institutions so why does he fear that he'll be put into one neatly raises the mind the question of ok so he's going back to mexico his hometown doesn't provide mental health treatment is there no outpatient treatment available like the connection between my hometown has no mental health treatment and and by the way i'm going to encounter officials who are then going to put me in these mental health facilities where the abuses would then occur there's a there's a disconnect there and and that's why i asked about whether there's additional evidence that you're going to put in the record if would not find himself in a mental institution in his home town he would find himself in such an institution someplace correct because have some difficulty with that the board says you lose because the case you were lying on is no longer good law that's their analysis because that's their analysis of his initial analysis of his claim that makes no sense to me but i think that case has nothing all that happened in that case was the supreme court told the ninth circuit don't decide this issue in the first instance have the b i a decided  the v a says well tough luck you lose the supreme court vacated it didn't overrule it just vacated it that strikes me as an improper legal analysis isn't it i don't believe so that went to the particular social group itself whether or not but they said you disease if they are in fact being persecuted and there's evidence in the in the country report that they are why aren't there particular social group well i don't know that the board said here in its decision whether or not  d that would be because burgess said your evidence is insufficient but his evidence was i have mental health other people like me are being persecuted because of their mental health it may not and the board says your evidence is insufficient so when what why was it insufficient was insufficient because it failed to draw a line between his subjective fear as a member of this better person with the mental illness and the harm he hardly forgets to draw the line between himself as a member of the group and whole that's on the second prong i'm looking at the first prong now why hasn't why wasn't his evidence sufficient to establish a particular social group all the board said was it's insufficient because this case has been vacated so we can turn to reasonable fear of persecution and second the why wasn't enough to establish a particular social group well insofar as the evidence addresses persons with mental illness we've only got the line in the state department report saying that mexican because the decision can stand on the alternate basis for it ok which is the rest of us and that's fair but just were just so they were clear that's not really an analysis of whether he belongs to a social group it's a misreading of prior decisions right i hear what you're saying but i've also mentioned that this no reason to doubt because we take his motion for what it means but objectively he still needs to provide the evidence and all we have here on that issue is the state department report which mentions the treatment of the mentally ill we've got that large list of headlines with what relating to violence in evidence in the state department report of those who are institutionalized being subjected to bad treatment fair and yes so my question is how how much evidence on a motion to reopen remember we're not dealing with the eventual disposition of a case how much evidence does he have to produce about his subject to fear when he's been essentially going to be sent back to a country where they institutionalized people like me and then they torture them where then they treat them badly so there's he have to show that he's likely to be institutionalized or just that he's a member of a coup asked that from people our institution has to show the reasonable likelihood that he would face persecution in mexico on whichever basis if it's a social group claim that it's socially but it has to be reasonable likely to to him and we know from case law that that reasonable likelihood whatever amount of evidence that has to be it has to be enough that it would likely change the outcome of the case so that's what person of color and i'm being sent to a country where they persecute people of color do i have to show that the entire country persecutes them as opposed to the state i'm being sent to i no i don't think so i think you can show regionally if you're going to be persecuted regionally for some reason that's your region and your to be persecuted there and i think that would suffice but again it relies on the evidence that your hypothetical person is providing we have to show that link between the harm that he subjectively fears and the likelihood some likelihood is with regard to that point that this is really due to inferior resources of treatment for mental health if we find that that inference that the mistreatment in mental institutions in mexico is not really due to  thank including these features if you had one of those features to be insufficient but we have the other features to look at and of course the evidence as a whole which is what the board was called to look at the evidence as a whole his affidavit the document letter and then now we're getting down to dissecting that cost because the v a says while including reports on conditions of general violence in mexico and as just what says let's let's not that out right that generalized violence in mexico isn't enough then what's left with is one other  again because we have sufficient reason to understand why the board ruled the way to because they have because they're saying look you have to bring more evidence and that's that's that's the vision for us like that but the evidence that they said he brought them was inferior resources and as i read the record at least some of the evidence he brought to them was of let's use persecution is the word because it's the lowest level of mental mentally ill patients some didn't think then they just analyze this incorrectly it may well be that he hasn't shown a particular arced fear of persecution but they say it's because all of the only evidence you have is of general violence and inferior resources and he has quite different evidence that they did say that your honor and i should know that petitioner in his brief here has waived that as a ground he says he's not complaining of a lack of mental health resources in mexico he says he's not complaining about alexis lack of access to medications in mexico these are concessions of course he's waived that ground because the lack of that's not the argument he's making the argument he's making is not inferior resources or lack of medical care they argue needs making is that i'll be institutionalized and persecuted so i understand why he's waving that argument i'm not even sure he made it below