can be deported without any further hearing on the issue in this case is whether mr della cruz has a reasonable fear so it's not a question about the merits of the case at this point it's just the screening a screening hearing see whether there is a reasonable possibility that he may be approved we think that we submit that the immigration judge's decision is incorrect and should be reversed primarily on three different levels suppose for example the immigration judge decides that she's not going to hear any testimony at all all the immigration judge is going to do was read you the asylum officers you haven't previously submitted in that case perhaps agency to make that extension rather than the court and then the nd goes to your more substantive argument that you just made about the i j a asking questions and getting into the mental competency issue but it seemed to me about mam talks about the agency's obligation to provide information and yet the fair proceedings are non adversarial and you don't necessarily require d h appearance as a party so it seems like there is some collision between the reality and then what mam might require i'd appreciate your was i do also want to talk about the substantive decision that the immigration judge made which is independent of the m a m s argument if you look at the record we submit that there important there that you did ask the police you know he's basically told them to use these as the perpetrators ran away into this house and the police decided they weren't going to pursue or do anything about it we submit is evidence from the application that was filed by his father and there's also a specific a letter in the record i think it's on page fifty six of the screening procedure to comply with treaty obligations which mandate that the us not to deport individuals to countries where they will be tortured in the future so but i think critically here it speculative because the he sort of kind of points to this cut his cousin status however it speculative as as determined by the immigration sides eve position or heard about this event from his cousin sister who in turn heard it from the husband who heard it something about the father the insistence father from the st accusers that in itself is not enough just fabulous a claim and then to the unclear and i am applies and the reasonable fear come contacts and your honor is correct that it is really a question for the agency whether the full extent of matter a mam applies but i don't think the court really needs to reach that issue here because st aside from not showing prejudice i think alpharetta alvarado herrera versus garland really instructs the court that we should be looking at the  there's he had a reasonable opportunity to prevent to present evidence and looking at the transcripts we know that he's stated that he was seeking medication for anxiety they are in the hearing room or in the you know the time of the interview but there's this comment that's made by counsel was sort of speaking in code about maybe there's a concern about franco class membership which i understand to be a signal that you know different  as counsel was concerned about competency issues and because the judge then responded by ordering the records and we do know this person had been in detention for thirty days at that point and we reported getting meds every day so there's going to be some record presumably that of the at least of those medications being delivered or not i shouldn't we be very concerned that that there was no follow up it just gets dropped so to the extent that there was an inquiry was triggered i that aren't in the record but but the record is what it is right and the obligation was triggered meeting the concern but i mean if the concern was triggered by somebody in position to be watching for this and then again without pointing fingers what we've gotten is there's no follow right that would that would speak to prejudice but my answer is that correct we don't really know what happens why the ball was dropped by either parties but again we don't know what the obligation  process but it's agency procedure where no prejudices required would that require remained here i mean if if we agree with you that the due process which requires prejudice and you can't necessarily get over that hurdle you still have the agency procedures question which doesn't require prejudice how do you characterize that well we would st that we would have to decide whether those procedures apply to the reasonable fear context but for the reasons discussed in alvarado herrera it's very likely that those procedures  climb the same concepts now correct if the court certainly has the ability to remember on that question but i just i just i'm wondering from this record i mean there's clearly nothing here fine he understood all the questions so it's just i question whether this is the right vehicle for the i would say it's a sort of come up with procedures when the person did not he had all the safeguards cousin and the attackers looking about his family and so on except this credible in terms of substantiating a claim for you know to prove that there is actually a pens should not be expected to come up with with supporting documentation to be taken out of word and if it looks like there's at least a reasonable possibility a chance that it would be successful then he passes the hurdle here we actually question are you saying that past persecution regarding his father and so forth is relevant to the finding of that subjective fear of future persecution is that your point well st of all i