is whether the board properly reviewed the immigration judge's decision that the petitioner had not established a ten percent chance that he would be prosecuted in mexico on account of his imputed homosexuality or his hiv positive status we argue that the board did not regarding the hiv positive status the board relied on a single fact which was not even relevant to the disposition of the claim and dismissed the claim without recent consideration regarding imputed homosexuality in the alternative if the agency did not properly rely upon caster martinez then remained as proper for a full consideration of the record which did not occur in the first instance the following facts are not interested in this case the petition heterosexual hiv positive individual from mexico who provided credible testimony that he feared harm if you're talking make an express credibility determine if he did not find him not credible i don't believe he made an express finding leases  if you're going to tell us that the gun you have somehow over overturned castro that's that's of great interest to us well i'm not arguing that it's overturned it but in bringing us one of the things that the court focused on was that the argument that whether there's a pattern of practice of persecution against homosexual individuals in mexico was foreclosed by the court's earlier ruling in caster martinez where the evidence show that there were improvements in the conditions of home almost for homosexual individuals in mexico however i done which came out a couple months after bring us but contains more recent evidence from two thousand and eleven and two thousand and thirteen actually show that that wasn't the case wasn't evident doesn't the dealing with transgender it does your honor however it does have evidence that is pertinent to this case the courts in caster martinez and brings us both both focused on a two thousand and ten state department report that talked about how great strides have been made in mexico in protecting homosexual individuals but then and have been done no the evidence showed that there had actually been an increase in violence against homosexuals and vigils since these greater legal protections had been extended an expert witness noted that the passage of these laws protecting homosexual individuals had actually made the situation for them more precarious and that the highest number of hate crimes since two thousand and ten actually took place in mexico city how is it that you get that you that you want to get an inference of of persecution which has to be by the government or with the governments acquiesce since if  often danya we have is some evidence of an increase in persecution by people in mexico because of the additional legal protections that have been enacted by its government that's true and i think there is a distinction between what the and what is actually happening in practice in the country so just because there are these greater laws does not mean that people are actually being protected and the department of state report relied upon in all of the cases talks about how even though there are greater protections it doesn't necessarily mean are you finding in that state department report evidence that would support a finding of acquiescence i think there is and i think that if the court is going to say that they're looking at the evidence in prior cases and that's been that question has been foreclosed on i think you  it should be remanded to the board can also look at this or the agency can also look at this recent evidence that's come up in the ovens on a case and i'd also like to note that these questions deal with the homosexuality piece but they don't deal with the other particular social group of hiv status which i actually think is the petitioner strongest argument in this case what's the evidence there that we would go back to mexico he would suffer persecution because of his a t v status so in the record the petitioner submitted numerous articles regarding the treatment of each i the positive individuals and it talks about each of the patients suffering frequent violations of their human rights in public health institutions and what's your what's your best what are your best coverage two thousand and eleven i don't know is that the date that on which it was pulled because i have actually reprinted this article and want to reprint of the article it came up with the date of december thirty first two thousand and two that is the only date that i the two thousand and eleven may be the date on which was pulled from the service ok in which case this is very very dated it's true we also have two others that are more recent if that is the case at page two seventy there's an article from two thousand and eight from the houston chronicle and that state you and aids patients frequently complain of discrimination by nurses and physicians including their refusal to perform a life saving operation and i was there any any evidence there that the government is complicit in that i'm not sure that there is however i know that the other article also talks about the fact that when there are they are these patients are suffering violations of their human rights it is a public health institution and so our argument is that it's not clear that the board ever looked at this evidence the board had  within the record right was in the record but there's no indication that the board ever reviewed it the board basically gave one explanation for upholding the immigration judge's decision regarding the hiv the social group and that was that the department of report state report stated quote women and men were given equal access to diagnostic services and treatment for hiv that's an opposite to the petitioners claim his claim was not based on gender his claim was based on hiv positive status so really the fact that men and women receive equal treatment regardless quality of that treatment had no bearing on the case secondly his claim was not merely that he wouldn't have access to each of the medication but that his treatment by society would constitute persecution and then cites to all these evidence in the each piece of evidence and say well we agree with this it's not persuasive it's whatever that is correct your honor and if there's nothing in the record to indicate that the board didn't consider all the evidence a simple catch all statement saying that they considered all the evidence can be sufficient but what this court the only reasoning that the board gives us is one sentence that doesn't really have anything to do with the petitioners claim so they say he didn't mean just burden of showing a pattern in practice where the department of state report says that men and women receive equal treatment and that really ha very little to do with his actually actual claim that as a home hiv positive individual he will be persecuted doesn't matter if men and women receive equal treatment so it certainly appears from this that they didn't consider any of the other evidence that one sentence is really not dispositive it doesn't explain why the immigration judge made the correct finding if you want to see some time for rebuttal i would your honor thank you but you say the minute i give you a little ok thank you it please the court tiffany walters for respondent the united states attorney general here petitioners talked a lot about the evidence presented in other cases and the question before the court today is one of the evidence in this record compels a contrary conclusion to that reached by the agency that and the agency concluded that petitioner failed to carry his burden to establish eligibility for asylum he failed to establish that there's a pattern or practice of persecution against hiv positive individuals against homosexuals such that every h i v positive individual and every homosexual in mexico would have a well founded fear of persecution and the evidence in this record just doesn't compel such a sweeping either such a sweeping conclu means of the twenty can report just i mean just your argument is for closed our position is that each case is an individual case and the evidence in each case has to be looked at on a case by case basis i mean certainly question martinez is relevant  helpful to discussion on two thousand and ten record but the run of the evidence in this case is different from a castro martinez question when tina's actually also included the two thousand and nine country reports which included a report where police had actually attacked again rights activists so there was some evidence of actual targeted violence and we don't even have that in this case and the case law is certainly helpful but each case has is an individual right have that twenty thousand report with twenty ten report with all these other articles and show this sort of targeted violence that you see in other cases like bromfield where the court did find a pattern but if you have violence in action on a person you have to have violence no i don't but that would certainly be relevant i mean all of all of the factors are considered so that access to healthcare certainly considered the social discrimination as if only all considered but the question is whether or not the harm that that individuals in these situations experience rises to the level of persecution that's an extreme actions as far as hiv positive status that show a government that is not actually doing anything that's just making proclamations but not you know following them up i mean we also see in a country report the government is affirming so i don't know that we have a record that shows that the government is completely turning a blind eye i mean if we had evidence of that that would be a different situation but we don't see this evidence of you know targeted violence that you see in for example brown fell and i mean there you had the government you had actually targeted widespread violence against homosexuals by both public and private actors you had a law criminalizing homosexuality finding those punt punishable by up to ten years in prison and you had government the prime minister making statements saying we're not go pressured into not in force is what kind of evidence with the petition have to show to show the establishment to make at least make a legitimate case that the government is not enforcing its law i think we'd have to see what what what could the petitioner do i mean if you show that homosexuals are being regularly attacked by private individuals and police refusing to investigate refusing to take any actions i mean that would definitely be significant but we don't have evidence in this case we just don't have we definitely have evidence that the government is moving forward in terms of gay rights but we don't have an evidence evidence that it's turning a blind eye to actions by private individuals or that it's unwilling or unable with a c cite so i think that the immigration judge definitely found it on point and the board found it certainly persuasive but the board's decision is evaluating the evidence of the two thousand and ten country report the evidence in the record and finding that he hasn't met his burden so i don't think that the board interpreted caster machine as it's controlling in this case by any means but certainly it's helpful to the agency and to this court in terms of comparing the evidence here the evidence there and whether or not the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution petitioner spoke a lot about this new case ivan dano hernandez and as us quite pointed out it was a decision that focused on transgendered individuals and while there was a two thousand thirteen expert testimony that dealt more we have current country conditions regarding homosexuals we don't have that evidence in this record the agency didn't consider at and this court is limited to the record that was actually considered by the administrative agency submitted some evidence that persons with hiv status do not receive appropriate treatment sometimes in hospitals and there might even be discriminated against and that this is sufficiently widespread that it could be described as a country wide phenomenon putting aside whether that evidence was sufficient to meet petitioners burden is it consistent with a finding of acquiescence in other words if people with h l v are going into hospitals and not getting treatment and everybody knows that's happening the government was unable or unwilling to ensure that this was a tiny positive status for receiving any medical care that would be significant but here when we have the government actually making proactive steps to provide treatment individuals the status and and in fact you know there is evidence i think i want to the articles the government of mexico actually pointed to an openly gay and very positive individual to head up the largest you oh i don't have that the case cite but it's in the article eighty and it's in latin america i don't have the record page i'm sorry about that the individuals  by so so there's perhaps cases where where you could demonstrate on able or unwilling to control but it's simply not this case and we have significant evidence that the government is taking steps to address homophobia and to address treatment comparison so it's castro but it wouldn't control regardless of the outcome of the evidence in this case and in this case i sang this case on its own bring us was helpful but the evidence in this case i i just wanted to make one additional point to reiterate a point the respondent is making arguments about the evidence and whether it's strong enough to meet a burden that the board could and should have made its decision but did not do so the board said that establish that there was a pattern and practice of persecution in mexico against a chevy individuals where the country report stated men and women receive equal access to treatment that was their only reasoning in this case and so remained as property the board can actually give a reasoned decision if the board had actually laid out why all of the other evidence that we've cited to in the record about denial of life saving medical treatment denial of police protection and all of these other factors if the board had properly reviewed those then this court would have a different  now that this court is looking at one sentence that the board pulled out the frankly does not support the men inclusion you're and you're focusing only on the hiv that's correct your honor and i think that that enough warrants remain because the board did not make a reason decision the board did not give this court anything to properly review about whether all of that and then the implication that men and women are given equal access is should also we should all support focus on the fact that they are given access because that's also implicit in that conclusion yes it is but there's no and there's no indication of how much access and further that's not the petitioners entire claim he's not saying only he will be persecuted because he doesn't have access to treatment that would also be a different argument he's saying given all of the factors which are access to emergency lifesaving services unrelated to hiv lack of protection by the police inability to find any employment all of those factors are coming into that question of whether he will be persecuted and frankly it just doesn't appear from this record that the board properly considered