an indigenous mexican woman who was tortured for hours by mexican authorities to obtain a confession for a crime she did not commit the i j a denied asylum and withholding a removal granted a mandatory you say she did authorities or by the police with leaks and either finding in favor of mistletoe will result in the mandatory grant of relief in this case wrongly overturned that grand of mandatory factual findings including i think the findings are clear error the analysis of the board shows that the engaged in improper de novo review and that's a legal question of this court reviews the no my nd argument is that even if this court fin of the board apply the correct standard when you analyze it under the substantial and under substantial evidence unless this court agrees with the findings are illogical implausible or an unreasonable imprint from the record then you must reverse the decision of the board and raymond would direct that to grant relief so let me address st the use of the wrong standard the v a is only permitted to use clear this court has routinely reverse the board or improperly engaging in the number review and by engaging and finding and not giving appropriate deference to the i just predict the findings to be a lead to conclude that they use the wrong her or somehow that it shows that she will not be torture again that's not only improper that's without basis most of the evidence of this new case is recycled from the st one and the new evidence that was either and the new evidence that was submitted with it was either deemed not probative or used only as the monster that the new case even uses the same complaint from the two thousand and twelve criminal case there is nothing inability to relocate internally is a logical or impossible in fact is confusing this case for an asylum family unit case where perhaps the relative safety of other people who are benefiting from  your thank you for your question like i said before i don't i'm not completely discounting that i'm not saying that this is completely irrelevant i'm not saying that this evidence should somehow be outside of the record all i'm trying to point out is that the town's  opinions are that miss soto is the person who is guilty and this town believes that in two thousand and twelve she got away with it despite hearing in newspapers and by word of mouth that she's in fact guilty  this court under substantial evidence leads us to the same conclusion that she must be granted mandatory relieve under the board can't simply override the findings because it things that he would have seen the evidence different the board of of that report until after she was out of their custody so now if she is sent back to mexico she they will get their opportunity to and to enforce those threats and kill her because of her because everyone's heard about going to  rights commission they did they did during the during the initial torture they told her that if she reported the torture issue they would go after her torture and even kill her and she didn't report it however they did not the yes she goes back according to the red flags she'll go not back to the city where she lives but to a different city correct yes you are the red notice faces she will go to more at the top of that  rarely read a worse torture description than what's involved in this and as i looked at what the b i am how the v i i described it the way it was d found it does the to me that is applied an and that was it was clear error so the board talks about for example the report of over mistreatment by the mexican police she didn't file a complaint with the human rights commission the human rights commission did take so they were going to order her if she complained that they didn't know about that complaint and once it was there it is i thought the problem with everything in the i was saying was it was a logical flaw in almost everything do their job the right way or did they mess up and not apply the standard the way it's supposed to be your honor i guess from my perspective i don't think that the board messed up she's going to be were treated returned to mexico and when you look at the totality of of this record all the evidence that it was considered the board properly reviewed the immigration judges finding and it did find that the immigration she was detained she filed a complaint mexico has taken steps to make sure that the police such misconduct does not occur a completely different office of the state prosecutor investigated as evidence from sixteen different who had been kidnapped for ransom held for one month who was buried in and have a kind of you so yes the immigration judge himself found that there are reasons to believe that she may have committed this crime interpol  reviewed the warrant it's a horrific crime and she's been alleged to have committed it and yes she will face justice when she returns to mexico but what we're really have to focus on yours whether it's standard and the board exhaustively considered evidence its decision explained why it down the immigration judge clearly carried it walks through exactly what the think the things that the invasion judge did not consider and that was clear on the part of the human there is more than substantial evidence in this case in establishing that she did not carry her burden if it were true would be more likely than not if she was  which is one factor that is considered as the legal standard counsel we talked about this in the opening there are many factors that are considered judge wallace you are correct the fact that she is not being sent back to the exact hour it's two hours away the fact that mexico  included the government right so yes it's a five year old kid it's understandable that some of the people are upset that the neighbors the family i can only imagine the sorts of emotions it must feel for a five year old kid who was kidnapped for a month and murdered i mean i get it there are families and people that are upset in that town that does not mean that the police are going to torture it does not mean that it's likely or the not that if she's torture however it is the most important factor in any evaluation of cat and in fact the i j a states that this is the principal factor which he's considering the to likelihood but it is likely that torture will happen again unless there are significant changes to this individual circumstance and those changes have not occurred here in fact the country conditions state  have but that's not what the board she lives in maria that's where the problem took place where where she was accused that's where they and whatever they are corruptions group got or took her to jail and torture but that was more alien but in the in the red notice they are sending her back to more of these they're sending her back to or early on and then her car as is where the investigation took place is there's no evidence in the record that the this and the whatever they are a group of police officers are going to be involved with her and so it strikes me that in the two from the record that we have here and what was said that they're not that the very same police who tortured her came to europe on and i understood that she was sent back for  incarceration in mauritania to reign trial i didn't see anything in there and she was even around i can point it out to you if you give me a nd but there is a part in my brief where seven one of the witnesses on her which they will try and find out if she is guilty she will not be a matter i don't i don't think we have enough record to to know whether or not the state police will have jurisdiction or any point where she comes out of custody and tries to return to get through to be in on the people are able to to reach her whether she goes back to robin was whether she goes to talking about the townspeople who are mad at her because she's charged with killing again and then ray would they are the ones that would torture or not yes yes ok yeah overall there's three basis for torture either the police torture hers because they need a new declaration they torture her because she threatened them before and they told her not to do it or the townspeople kill her because they believe what it's been said that she  with and without iris i o s so if they send her back pursuant to this red line she would go into the into custody the assumption is she will be out of chemistry someday and they would then they would then have the opportunity the townspeople the killer and based upon what the townspeople mine too she is she should not be sent a regular i learned that or in the aggregate with the other