court should rule in favor of the cement eunice under the procedural safeguards established and ran versus holder and this notice an opportunity corroboration requirement is dispositive in this case the court should rule in favor of mr martinez for two additional reasons st the b a a and i just holdings are not supported by substantial evidence and nd the a j and b a failed to conduct an individualized inquiry to determine whether if mr mark the eunice ended up in a mental institution he would be tortured there i would begin by talking about run versus holder and run versus holder this should follow when determining whether a petition or an applicant meets his or her burden of proof under that analysis the idea was determined whether an applicant credible testimony alone makes the applicant's burden of proof if a credible applicant has not yet met his burden of proof then that a j may have the i g may require corroborative evidence i did you tell the borg that you wanted to have the opportunity to prison for evidence your honor and your question brings me to the government's twenty a j in this case in which they bring the exhaustion argument we believe at this point and i will answer question we believe at this point there is no exhaustion issue but i would like to comment on the government's twenty eight dollars j and because the government's actions in this case support that there is no exhaustion issue in this case and that is what we believe at this point is there no exhaustion issue because you exhausted or and if it would help if you could answer did you present it to the board sure the government can waive it yet you know maybe we have our proposition is not that the government can waive the exhaustion and i do understand that it is a jurisdictional issue my point is that in the fact that the government has not brought it it's clear to us that exhaustion is not an issue in this case and that the government has realized that they actually lose this case on the substantive issue of corroboration but in terms of an answer to your question questions remain did you exhaust i guess your honor and for that question i would look to rand versus holder and run versus holder has a discussion on their jurisdictional issue in this case jurisdiction or exhaustion for purposes of this issue is is determined on whether the be a is put on notice of a particular issue and the th circuit does not employ this exhaustion doctor in a formalistic manner in this in render says holder which was a pro se applicant the applicant simply stated that they believed they had met the burden of proof and challenging the ideas decision that they had not in this in our case it's analogous in the sense that the i j a made a decision as to whether or not mr martinez would end up in a mental institution proof and for that i would look to a r twenty where petitioners brief as not just stating you are wrong but actually affirmatively stating additionally respond will likely become homeless in mexico because he will be unable to access the treatment and medications that he requires respondents parents in mexico are unable to assist him because they are they are elderly and impoverished and his mother suffers from cancer circuit there is no requirement that an applicant use the magic words of corroboration or i need it to at least under run versus holder you don't have to say sure so what language supports do you believe your conclusion that corroborating evidence is necessary what comes closest that yarn or so i would lo to to a r twenty in the brief that was filed by biped petitioner in this case and the way that that that i think it makes sense to look at this is that petitioner is challenging th js decision that he did not meet his burden of proof and part of that challenge is the the factual statements that he makes about his family in mexico  so the b s a was the b s a was aware that the issue of of whether or not his parents would support him in mexico was it was an issue in this case and an issue that he was contesting  grant that was an issue that was contested but it you to say that there was a failure of corroboration suggests that you know he said something and then they said well you know we need some additional evidence and beyond your testimony and as i read the board's opinion what they're really saying is that we're not sure that he even said the things in his testimony that he's now saying in his brief and i mean when you look at the testimony particularly about whether his sister would continue to support him every time he's asked he says you know maybe she would and i don't know so i guess the question is is it really even appropriate to talk about this is a failure of corroboration as opposed to a failure of petitioner himself to know on speculative testimony as to what would actually happen yes your honor it's clear from from the decision both of the i j a and the b a that that the st finding was kind of just say yes but that's in the context of him having a mental illness correct it's in the context of other words his testimony was in the context and i'm not arguing his or commenting on his competence because that seems to have been resolved but there was also a finding that he was credible there was found that he was credible or is that significant yes that is significant you know why well it's significant in the sense that well st of all it makes it so that i'm running out of time but i'm going to j is saying yes i believe you are credible but you do not give us enough evidence and then fall to him for not providing that evidence which was a procedural violation as as we outlined in our brief so i think the credibility is important for that as well as for judge miller's point about whether it doesn't even make a difference that that petitioner didn't have the benefit of additional evidence and i think in this instance it would make a difference because because the i j a didn't find him credible but there was just not sufficient evidence according according to the i j a which is an issue that we can test as well ok why don't we hear from the government and you asked reserves from time will make sure you get enough time  upon return to mexico and he has not shown before this court that the record compels a contrary conclusion court and go no further to deny his petition for review with this but with respect to both asylum and withholding of or mobile opposing counsel brings up the issue of ren and as we are going to twenty eight dollars say the government argues that mr martinez rodriguez did not adequately exhaust that issue he did not raise anything to the board that would suggest that he not this court has ruled that exhaustion before the board in this context is both mandatory and jurisdictional and because it's one of the cases down for them a baby and because also this court has ruled that the alien needs apologize for that as soon as i realize the mistake i corrected it as soon as i could and so the dentist who has not been adequately exhausted which means we have no agency decision on that issue but additionally even if petition had adequately exhausted the preparation issue it would not apply both the statute and run itself make it clear that the issue arises only where the i j a is faulting the applicant for failing to provide chrebet of evidence which is not what was happening here the i j a was looking at the evidence in the record which she found credible noting some things that weren't there and then ruling based on evidence in the record she didn't fault the petitioner for failing to provide the s from the sister and the parents you mention that they weren't there but she didn't rule that that was the reason he had failed to meet his burden of proof instead she looked at his testimony what she deemed credible and found that the testimony wasn't sufficient  say words to the effect i don't think my sister will support me she'll forget about me when i'm in mexico he did say that that was part of her i mean that's in her that's in the in the decision yes so how is that not a significant part of the of her analysis the trouble is he also clearly testified at page one hundred and fifty seven dollars of the record that his sister told him that she will pay for his medication in mexico so he's testified both ways nd you have you have folks who no one knows what's going to happen future and i don't know that we necessarily want to fault people for giving their sort of best opinion an honest opinion rather than saying qualified italy there's no way this person is going to support me i mean i know it's sort of maybe that's a tougher analysis in some ways conceptually but it's these for me it's hard to fault someone for being hyper honest and offering an opinion about what he thinks will happen even when it is somewhat against his interests so to me maybe the corroboration component is do you want to be more specific on this issue and provide a little bit more gloss to this so we can understand whether there's anything i agree that the statement from the sister could have been helpful but that doesn't mean the i j a was denying the claim on that basis in a way that would make  apply and in part possibly because he did clearly mr martinez rodriguez clearly testified that his sister promised to continue paying for his medications in mexico in addition to his worry that she might forget about him which i don't think that i thought was reasonable in light of the fact that she's been supporting him for years and had promised to continue to do so while he's been living in her home here correct though she also did according to his testimony on page one fifty dollars she did tell mr martinez rodriguez that she will pay for his medication in mexico specifically and that i think the i j a found that specific promise more credible than his fear that she might forget about him because she's been supporting him for years more over the mr martinez rodriguez has been on and off his medications over the years while he's been living in the united states and for a few months in mexico in two thousand and nine and even while his office medications he seems to be able to maintain a stable functional life he works mostly been under the table but he's been undocumented so that may be why he's been working under the table he's been working five or six hours a day he had friends until they moved away he had a girlfriend so it seems that even if for some reason his sister did completely forget about him after years of supporting him that he  would rise to the level of persecution or of torture the agency's decisions are focused solely on his objectively reasonable fear and then for cat whether it's more likely than not that he would be institutionalized but the agency didn't go any further they part of the substantial evidence analysis here which was clearly exhausted because of the way that the th circuit has formulated this this requirement as something that is not formalistic then we would request additional time to brief this issue because of the new one says that in the th circuit and because we believe that in this case this issue has been exhausted and we have not been given the benefit of time to fully brief both sides for your arguments in this case martinez rodriguez was barnow submitted for decision