as the sun rising that mr mathias would suffer the same violence that he suffered in el salvador and i quote it's just going to be a repeat of the kind of situation he's experienced in the past or at least  honor obviously in the other country condition evidence everything in the record the judge can consider but in this case we're not we don't even need to go the dispositive issue because the agency ignored that testimony the agencies literally ignored indicators is is the agency feels to address is positive testimony expert testimony and in this case that's exactly what happened and mr bormann this is a case involving two incidents of past torture by two different parts of the salvadoran security forces one when when he was handcuffed he's been tied hands behind his back and beaten by off icers in the nd by when he was essentially sequestered by members of the salvadoran military who had conceal their identities and proceeded to beat him with their rifles and only after a crowd assembled honor that conclusion but the judge ignored that and failed to analyze that and for that very narrow reason your honor this case should be remitted for the purpose of the agency actually exploring but that wasn't the only one on what  to join a gang if you was deported but his testimony did not say that his testimony stated that if you was threatened to participate in m s thirteen he would you if there is past torture there is essentially a presumption of future torture there's not a regulatory presumption but this discourse held repeatedly where there's past torture there's a presumption of future torture unless  your honor says that when a person has been tortured in the past it is likely that that person will be i'm sorry i don't have the exact quote in front of me right now but it's not really a contested and he was acting under duress after the gangs threatened him threatened to kill and so for for that reason again the agency we don't have to go to substantial evidence in this case because the agency ignored that testimony they cited to it but they cited to it for the proposition that he would not engage in criminal behavior if you were removed i can see th rule and i found the quote when determining whether it is more likely than not an individual be tortured have to report into her home country past torture is the st factor a court will consider this is because past conduct frequently tells us much about how an individual or government will behave in the future it is likely that he will be tortured again if returned to the site of his prior suffering unless circumstances or conditions have changed significantly that's evidence with respect to the cat claim that immigration judge explicitly stated that he was considering all evidence even if he did not mention it and the board adopted an affirmed agreed with immigration judge even noted that it was severing the petitioner's testimony dr bormann is testimony to record evidence and as your honour's of pointed out the expert testimony was considered and although and he testified regarding country conditions his opinion and opinion of what happened however that you don't see considered everything including the documentary  for the standard is whether the record compels the conclusion that attrition or would receive the type of harm that would rise to the level of torture agency also probably considered past torture judge explicitly stated that the due to his young age it was considering that the two incidents rise to the level of torture to beatings and then the immigration judge went and considered both that he testified at least he's now an adult so even considering dr bormann is testimony that you don't see recognize that he could be subject to increase scrutiny due to is casting behavior his possible you know his possible affiliation now but found that the record just didn't show that he would be harmed the level that qualifies as torture under the law was a what is your best argument that  his testimony it didn't go into explicit details about every piece of evidence that it was looking at but in general the court assumes that it has and here they are  with however i don't think it's necessarily i think it's equal to other record evidence the state department country reports that are in the evidence as well that are in the record as well that the record compels the reversal of the determination and regarding the mention against torture and to address petitioners other arguments he's never specifically challenged that states that they asked a resident of the home three different times she said that she consented there's never been any evidence to the contrary no affidavit no no testimony by her no one has ever explicitly contested that there was consent for them to be in the home and i to thirteen also states that the bedroom door was opened by another resident who was in the bedroom  it would be reasonable under those circumstances for law enforcement officers to have weapons as they're arresting someone in a dark room with that sort of background what's your take on what happened with the pointing of the gu n i i agree that that would be alarming for the family in the room there's no disputing that but under the circumstances i it's not an egre evidence including the fact that the salvadoran security forces have killed one thousand and eighty nine suspected gang members over a catchall phrase that the immigration court has considered privacy interest in his room that would have violated regulations pointing a gun at him in his child to get him to leave the room certainly and so that course is egregious i mean