good morning and may please the court my name is just heath and this is my colleague peter andre's and we are pro bono counsel for petitioner in the action mr bones were low we reserved five minutes rebuttal at which time my colleague will dress any issues raised by  suppose we will view it under and acquiescent standard does that change the result i think if you look at the standard applied by the i if you look at the the standard that they've applied it would be the willful acceptance standard well i mean that and that was you know that was kind of my question as well it just wasn't clear to me that that's the case because they do talk about the fact that  luis was prosecuted so there wasn't it doesn't appear to me that what was applied was a willful accepted state there's no evidence either to suggest in other words the whole ruling was based on the notion that this was a rogue officer and and was not that the relationship didn't call upon a determination that the government was accept well there's two sides i think as far as willful acceptance goes their ruling depend on the fact that you cannot find acquiescence where the government does not have reasonable control over a group or an individual and different issues i blindness but that type of issue was not presented factually in this case and was not resolved i think it was because they found that the officers with luis and luis himself were rogue officers and that's private individuals and therefore the government shouldn't have an obligation or doesn't have the ability to control private individuals and all it's not a shouldn't have they didn't reach that conclusion they basically said it wasn't the government position and they pointed to several facts wh found it's one fact that you go into the acquiescence determination but it's not dispositive about whether they proffer when it came out of prison was he still on officers no evidence of that in the record and they didn't result that the words that it would have needed to resolve that probably  but i don't think that acquiescence determination would turn on the fact of whether he continued to be an officer it would be something to take into consideration but he would not even know about assett it wasn't even an issue in the decision that they reached the way they reached they announced the paragraph they had a paragraph there on the very last case in that paragraph listed this case with the standard and basically they were given background information and you may be right that that's a wrong standard and maybe we should point that out but the question is does that change what they decided i don't see how it does i i hear what you're saying but i don't think they reached that point they didn't find it necessary to reach that point because they decided he was a rogue cop and they made that determination because the the government did not accept or did not turn its head blindly that was the conclusion they concluded so you didn't have to resolve that issue whether it was will that's a that was a factual finding the i j a which the the i accepted the i j special fines and then at the end of the case just decided that they were wrong so that there are a lot of issues with it where they it disregarded the immigration judges factual finds including the likelihood that he'd be tortured with acquiescence in the future but the issue underlying the ability to rope relocate as i recall was the problem or the question of the utilization of the national database and what the f b i he said was that there were simply no evidence in the record that the national database had been  used in the way it was suggested right i mean it's a new database so why it would be so there's no right so there's no it was the lack of evidence regarding the use of the database there's no reason demonstrated they could be used right and then i did found that it could be used to talk track him down but not that it has been now he was going to it's possible to use it right people wanted to write and under the regulations it's just one of many facts that the i consider in determining whether future torture is likely to occur exactly and that was my point actually there were a number of factors that the v i i looked at and which in its conclusion none of which appeared to me at least in concede for a moment because that that you're correct and that they cited that it's wrong standard may invoke the wrong standard cite but then they go on and the facts that they found would not have benefited you if they applied willful blindness in other words there's no suggestion that you have to show that you would you lost under willful acceptance and you would have won under willful blind and i think we make this adam and section three separately they didn't even get to that issue to the contrary what they said is that you can't even impute this to the government because they had a change over that these were rogue cops and they laid out all those facts the whole next paragraph does not suggest if that willful blindness were there a statute applied you there would have been different sentence not a single sentence there i just looked at it would have been different right and that's kind of whe disregarded key finds the i j a without any sort of explanation so they cherry picks all say their example for example they say that the anti corruption efforts of the proving government should outweigh the lack of progress in rooting out police brutality in the police force where as one is clearly more relevant to the case than the other well i'm sorry you said that they disregarded findings without any explanation factual findings and i was asking for an example of well the for example the  database they just said we are not convinced that will be used this way well there was no evidence that it was but it was the idea was not used to actual fine to which they're supposed to defer no it was in the factual the factual finding was that it could be used there was no factual finding that it was so in fact there was no evidence that it was so right so that there was no factual finding you didn't they did thereby b i didn't find that the database couldn't they found that he couldn't underpinning for that was as i recall correctly from wrong but i thought that the basis for that was its finding with respect to the database because otherwise there would be no reason that you would have to have that is the predicate for the finding of the could we look right but i mean i think the price you can get consideration multiple factors including that he's friends with current police officers but the database was another factor he took into consideration when making the finding that mr starr's cannot relocate or they also said that even if it were that there's no evidence that they would have used that and provided the information to lewis because lewis they found was a ro cop and there was no evidence to suggest that he had enough actual position even after his incarceration they made all those observations they made the observation they didn't explain their reasoning determining that he was a rogue cop or that if officers that were accompanying him were ro in that case he said that inquiry into governmental acquiescence does not turn on a government's ability to control the individuals engaging in torture sexuality i think that's kind of my point here is that the the the i assumed that if the government approved cannot control luis then there can't be a finding about it we have all of that prosecuted but they prosecute him for a separate crime and he was out within three months rather than the fifteen year sentence well that's another issue whether he was out but he was convicted of murder prosecuted and convicted of murder and there's no evidence he made a call afterwards right but he has harassed mr starr's family with other police officers present understand that's a that's consistent been a rogue cop your friends go along with you well i mean i think what their purpose you have to look under dale rosso sort of the american apparel the standard for determining whether a net official acts in an official capacity it look the nexus between their position and their torture sexualities here they're wearing badges they have firearms their job is to prevent exactly what luis is continuing to do which is attempting to find and kill mr suarez and they're not doing it so they're aware of torture se they're after breached their legal obligation to prevent it he for the question that's fine thank you  please the court dare to lead us on behalf of respondent united states attorney general respond i respectfully ask the court to deny this petition for review because substantial evidence supports the denial of petitioners convention against torture claim yes and that was one of the four factors that the agency does have to consider and deciding whether a petitioner has met his or her burden of proving eligibility for cat protection as your honour's have noted the record is under spirited that luis is really the only person that the petitioner seems to fear and as the record demonstrates the proven officials have prosecuted convicted and incarcerated him when it was brought to their attention that he was acting acting violently it's also uncontested that petitioner failed to demonstrate post murder conviction that luis remains employed as a peruvian police official it's also uncontested that the peruvian government has implemented reforms after mr suarez well as departure from peru in one thousand nine hundred nine essentially the crux of their argument because they're only if he's only afraid of luis is that the current peruvian government will acquiesce in any harm that luis imposes on the petition they've simply failed to show that this is the case again i invoke the the record evidence regarding change country conditions as to the prosecution of luis the holding accountable of the prior regimes believe that this court has any binding law anymore that the willful acceptance standard is not appropriate sotto was the court's discussion on that which was vacated when the parties took that up on barak and subsequent to that this court has always discussed it in on as applied to analysis of the board's decision they applied a willful acceptance standard the words will fix up and don't appear anywhere else in the decision and largely they decided as a matter of law that the facts as presented simply did not show well had met his burden of proving that it was more likely than not proven officials would acquiesce in the leases behavior so given the facts of this case and that the board found as a batter of the law whenever the government was made aware of louise's behavior that they took action there is no evidence on this record that current peruvian officials acting in their official capacity would acquiesce in any harm by luis he's been back in peru for a body year now yes i believe he was removed in january two thousand and twelve thank you very much honors mr on