aside doesn't mean you can run and how in the credibility unless that's when you want to do a dozen words we may not agree d with you on the other issues then what if the court agree if a court  board i didn't give reason to considerations of the evidence or when they did they reached a conclusion contrary to that compelled by the record then remembered be appropriate for the board to consider the evidence in the  agency's role to look at the evidence and analyze it especially in a case like this where the acquiescence question is one where the board gets deference they have particular expertise to have a leg up when you want to know on the credibility and  this court rules that the record compels the conclusion that is credible then there would be no further role for the agency to play in the credibility arena but if the court thinks that there would be evidence that the court needed that the board needed to reach in the credibility arena then remain would be appropriate but i'm not sure that three men would be required by been to or in the credibility contacts like it wouldn't get so assuming that he's credible what is your position assuming that he's credible and leaving that to the serious crime finding to the side of the government's position is that the agency gave the reason the consideration to the evidence in the record and that evidence does not compel the conclusion that the guatemalan authorities would acquiesce to mister not a joke is torture if he experienced any and upon return the police were not as responsive as he would have liked when he reported the crimes to stop filing reports because they acknowledge that they were at risk too but they just are not a joke it draws from not that they necessarily since investigator wouldn't help him further and i'm not sure that that compelled by the evidence the police were admitting that they're at risk from gangs but that's not the same thing as what's been the case in the other cases to which petitioner cites to in social change the police observed the petitioner being the yeah observed the petitioner being beaten and they stood there and observed and laughed that's the level of acquiescence that we're talking about the the acquiescent standard for cat is higher than the standards of unable or unwilling for asylum in withholding it's the agency never reached that question no not at all there are plenty of other ways that it could happen but one of the cases petitioner was for lying on for the proposition that reluctance to investigate equals acquiescence doesn't really stand for that proposition and as widely as she wrote that w the law in that well that can be tricky but the acquiescence is where the police know in advance or are willfully blind to something and then they breach their legal duty to intervene not where they're upset that you're bothering them that's not my burden to show that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility and that the record compels that conclusion and there's no doubt that there's some evidence in this record but not sufficient evidence to compel the conclusion of meeting the high standard of reports because two of the reports were about the same incident about the threatening incident when i took it went once and then he went back a couple of days or a week later to check on it and so i j how did that i think it's pretty clear about as one report based on the threat and then once again about the kidnapping so where's pichon accounts really i don't count too there's no real discrepancy and to the extent that there is i don't think that shows that the agency wasn't paying attention to the to the case or not doing it properly the board didn't mention those reports specifically because it simply reviewing the ideas decision they can't find facts in the st shouldn't be doing that and so in its review it did specifically mention the reports but it's not required to it mention the under conditions evidence of pervasive corruption and rule of the mission of a joke i had not sufficiently demonstrated a link between pervasive corruption and what he feared he didn't even feared that the police were corrupt in his hometown specifically the police had said to stop reporting because they were nervous but that's not the same as corruption so it's not clear how the evidence of corruption would link  situation from seventeen years ago opportunity to do that that would be the role of this court would be to remind the board that they need to look at the evidence to point them to specific things that this court finds relevant to read the evidence the way those court finds the record tells them to do but they still have the expertise and deserve the deference to look at that evidence in the st instance in light of their expertise on these question