sixty five that the petitioner is likely to be exposed to violent treatment by the gangs and likely clearly complies with a clear probability standard that's more likely than not so she made a factual finding concluding that he would be harmed by the guy and she just didn't find that is membership in the prison your basic argument the fact that if you can't get the drugs or doesn't take the drugs while he's in guatemala because of his not taking the drugs he will react in a particular way and when faced with either contact with gang members or vigilante groups or police there were action to his conduct at that point in time will be violent but you know it's your argument that is you can reason if that is your argument they're not really attacking him on the basis of his mental status they're attacking him on his actions that they see or perceive in front of them at that point in time so they may not even know that that he is has any mental problems at all because their reaction be violent isn't that the problem with your position well they should be that he's a reaction may or may not be violent or maybe symptomatic in different ways maybe talking to himself he may be do other so attenuated that that's why the i j said it's there's not a nexus and so you have to show even though maybe it's a possibility it's got you have to compel it's got to be compelling it seems like there's so many if so long the way that we like what church will said it really doesn't go back to his original problem of his mental state that is correct and the record completely confirms that he's been ostracized four times in the united states he doesn't take his medication whether or not his parents are with him so the fact that his parents will go back with him hasn't been able to prevent him he's been subject  and he's had his parental support and he's still consistently complicated and had to be hospitalized but it would be very speculative i think that anything different or better is going to happen in terms of his health problems as if he is removed  that ok then the next step is what happens if he acts crazy and i don't mean to be disrespectful or flip that's the term used by the expert in this case if he starts speaking to us or acting to use them acting crazy on the street that experts speculate about how he would people would respond to him as a very violent i have a different question about this record and and i just have a hard time reviewing it the expert in this case had lots to say uniquely qualified and there are dozens of places where the tape is in discerning this or not with the with the man how he would have finished his sentences and in some in some instances in very important places in the record that's right so what about that how do we get a recording where we can ok yes the other option the story amended to actually get the testimony on the record in person so we'll hear what the government has to say i just i just had a very hard time reading the testimony from the basically your question the expert think that he's going to have trouble with or without his medicine or that part of the of the chain doesn't seem to me to be speculative at all yes or no i would agree that the part that he probably won't get his medicine i do believe the record bears that out that it or they will come to even with it or with his parents so so so  he gets to that point where he's symptomatic is that where you pick up there is no evidence that he cannot get the medicine in fact in guatemala right there is no i don't think so there's access to medicine in guatemala supposedly the record shows that there is access to the medicine the world health organization has a report that is in the record from two thousand and nine which says that twenty seven percent of the population of guatemala has access to coverage for psychotropic medications like mr mendez morale is right and he's got the medicine here and he still having these problems i only point i don't i i don't i don't disagree with your statement about the record shows about access to the medicine in guatemala sure but if he doesn't have access to medicine or doesn't take his episodes would have to be in front of either gang member or a policeman supposedly if we've got the beauty of policemen in guatemala and vigilantes but again their reactions to his situation won't be because of well the standard for that nexus generally is that the persecutor knows that you have the in this case it would be the mental disorder that's the group he put forward and harms you because of that mental disorder and so where we're where we see the problem in the record is that the number of f so if he is acting symptomatic the gangs may respond to him because they respond violently to anyone they see as defiant or disrespectful but it wouldn't be  has the evidence this is the problem i have this expert testified to the extent i can read all of his sentences which is really but he did it very clearly talks about if this guy starts acting crazy and talking to himself that's conduct i don't think my earlier question was clear that's the conduct i'm worried about of some he's acting obviously like having a psychotic episode right and an expert opined that he believes that there would be a violent reaction but the rest of the country conditions evidence doesn't show that gangs particularly target people with mental illness it shows they target anyone that they think is problematic in some way so those symptoms may just trigger the gangs response i don't like how this person is acting but it's not because we would be getting into as as  counsel said this mixed motive question which if the court believed that that was a mixed motive that it goes beyond that a reasoned standard then it would be appropriate to remain and for the board to the agency to address in the st instance whether there is a reason at all which they they believe it appears that they did not find it as a reason but if the court felt that there are mixed motives there is this problem of he's acting symptomatic so i say that's a helpful response to me because then we have the bras issue and what you're saying is we're not sure we have the bras issue it up for the government to have cleaned it up or or should or their entire just to present what they presented to us well when the record came in it could have been on both sides to sort of look and see the problem with this indiscernible so if the court felt that because there are so many pounds of the indiscernible record there is the option that petitioners counsel could have requested the audio recording of the hearing so there is that option always or they can request the audio but as you sa that when the well the immigration judge wouldn't have seen the transcript it only gets to the board so the i didn't see anything indication in the brief to the board or from petitioners counsel or in the board's decision that they address this problem at the end discern ability but if the court felt there was a problem and we couldn't get a full record that again would be appropriate to remount and make sure that that we can get the full record on what mr boreman was saying i do think that the declaration try to get a better transcription of what there is or the solution be to have him come back to testify again would be a better transcription of what's already been stated is that the way it's made can you just tell us how it hurts is there recording somewhere there is generally a recording or yes all of the hearings are yes yes so it could be because it was on telephone something to come for a while and and maybe the transcriptionist couldn't hear it so perhaps a better transcription of perhaps being able to listen to the recording would if a clearer view of what he was saying do you think u this case given how the agency interpreted the agency did not see that there even was a reason because what the evidence doesn't link together is that gangs or police specifically target people with mental illness and so those symptomatic behaviors it's not necessarily that they know he has good thoughts schizo affective disorder or that because of that schizoaffective disorder that been motivated to harm him the general evidence when you look at the weight of it shows that gangs harm anyone as i said who are defian mission i don't think it requires a remain but i do think if the court is concerned about whether the board should address if there is a mixed motive then it would be appropriate but i do think under this market it's going to come out with the same result it seems because the board seems to the agency seems have decided there's not even that this mental illness is not even a reason for the harm it's just he might be harmed possibly not more likely than not because he might act in a way that a gang member doesn't like which could be any areas i can't tell the extent to which even address this expert says to me that what the board and the boards i have to say and the board reviewing with i j did and i medical issues and he does not know again and what the manifestations are there isn't anything the record to indicate how this particular fisher acts specifically when he doesn't have the medication and so therefore  with the country conditions evidence that's what the i g in the board discussed and although they didn't discuss it in perfect detail saying i'm talking about this piece of evidence versus this piece of evidence the totality of the evidence and looked at together doesn't mean that more likely than not standard that the harm will come because of the mental illness with all of the what ifs that are raised and in the speculative claim that like you said we don't know what behaviors will happen and we don't know how gangs respond to what behavior they might see we just know in general everyone is at risk of harm in guatemala because of the way that gang street the general public and and sixty eight where dr berman talks about his experience working with mental health populations you're familiar with that part of the record so i don't need to be didn't the record what is your response to that's pretty significant experience working with mental he does of the times working with mental health patients it wasn't clear in the record that he knows person he has some symptoms that he's seen people portray but again we don't know what mr and marla specifically what we saw some things before he was hospitalized some of his behaviors about self harm but the dates of those institutionalization is was ambiguous or inconsistent because i had thought there was something that said that he was institutionalized like in two thousand and seven which would be much earlier than the other testimony of later i ok so those were close together and i see that my time is over so there are the questions we believe that the next a standard would be met that there was not a reason and thank you then we only need to show that there is a reason that they are motivated like you may have to rationally and that's why they were acting by the soon as they realized that he's a mentally ill person he may be subject to this kind of behavior and the fear is not only from the gangs and he was acting in a way that wasn't responsible under the circumstances and he was following these advice from this person that was with it i mean that's what the record reflects but there's department of state that there are killings of inmates against other inmates and there are also information that mental patients are sometimes kept in hospitals with other inmates because judges just send them there and that's a page three that page four hundred and sixty nine that there's evidence of that treatment even if the expert said the treat their treatment is not targeted but it is because of a lack of funding cetera et cetera and the lack of funding is doesn't necessary play to the point that you're trying to make there is that the lack of funding it's not the issue that the consequences or the lack of funding will be that he will be even more exposed than he was in the united states to this kind of mistreatment from various segments of society and for this reason this case should be remand