said that is correct your honor in criminal negligence is objective standard so it would be sufficient that person should have been aware of the risks even if they didn't know and in this case unlawful act was practicing medicine without a license and so i doctor would have known of those risks so it's not there's no finding required for the conviction that she was aware and disregarded up only that she should have been aware embolism which could lead to death which is what happened in this case but those side effects are in the minority so this shows that the i kind of makes this finding that she was aware of the risks and disregarded them and the jury instructions as well for the statute do not require such a finding the complaint that the prosecutor filed is under the theory of involuntary manslaughter by an lawful act  accurate and well that's in applying the commission of a law full act i'm so that case law that the board cites to doesn't apply to mr law as promised that the basis of the criminal negligence is the unlawful not operating with you know pretty is a doing a medical procedure without a license and so high risk of death or bodily harm without consideration of such risks and i think a lot requires that additional done in this dangerous way to to have a high risk of death or bodily harm i don't think that that is inherent in an involuntary manslaughter conviction what the crime well i mean so presuming they do have an understanding of the right crime which i don't think they do the entire particularly serious crime determination rests on this one size fits all on its face involuntary manslaughter that the that the respondent participated in that are that participated in the defrauding of almost two million dollars the testimony of our bed that showed that he didn't accept responsibility likewise an adam dano we're talking about the specific injuries in those cases which the board rested on here we're just talking about this application of case law that is not applicable to miss the law is the promise is very involuntary manslaughter and and know nothing regarding the individual act analysis such that this finding of a high risk of death is is is it inconsistent with the record but also this that she was aware of consequences and just regarded them and i think this also goes to th prevailing kind of system under perspective which is why the testimony of dr olsen kennedy has a transgender health expert is really important because it shows all the circumstances and the other risks that a transgender woman of color are considering when they produces high rates of suicide when you have body parts that don't conform to your gender identity but that also the closer you align with your gender identity specially as a transgender woman of color to stay where you are because you're less likely to be identified risks that are particular to the conduct or are lying us conviction which which while the un authorized practice of medicine was the unlawful act a doctor would have known of the rest there were other risks then and here i think even under an abuse of discretion the board acts contrary to the law because they don't conduct an individualized analysis and they were don't rely on the proper factors i think in addition ana she was told she needed to know the names and to have the license plate of the car the police refused to investigate so here are now is chavez versus gonzalez only only requires that a public official could have inferred that torture was taking place and remained while fully blind here the police under acknowledge the police called her and did not investigate i think the government's argument that because she didn't have the information they wanted to because she laughed is without did it's not did they ask a few questions are mixed i'm pretextual asked the question is did they stand by and they stood by while the gang members were grabbing her customers while her and her business was the testimony in the transcript they say we don't care about you we're not going to waste our time with you and i think that that also be escalating violence to where she just leaves because she's being threatened and in the past she's never been protected and that's what prompts her to leave mexico because things are escalating and no one is going to protect her and i don't see how the b i confinement there's no that she has not produced any evidence that a public official  official and was found to see who may be eligible for cat there was no evidence on that record that people were still looking for her and mexico so i think it's a bit of a red herring for the port to say and anyway there is no evidence people are still stated that evidence of past archer is highly relevant significant to the probability future torture and here also we have country conditions evidence that shows that homicides against transgender women are one of the highest in the country of mexico that laws artifact of in protecting transgender women that the public officials themselves extort and i went against transgender women so it's not just these isolated incidences that constitute past torture but the country conditions as well indicate that there is this probability of each or torture probabilities is only in is more likely than not an honest record it doesn't explain why it's just a possibility not of probability and i think that given that the importance of and the extent of the past torture not to mention the other regarding being attacked by dogs being wrecked by strangers and remembers i think that your establishes that that probability and and and the board doesn't really explain why it doesn't other than to say that it's just a possibility see in this court has been clear that the factors looked at when determining whether a crime is particularly serious are just looking at the nature of the crime the underlying facts and the sentence  it's not necessary then to separately choir whether the person continues to be a danger the and now if this is about the conduct committed and the seriousness of the conduct committed there's no room in the analysis to analyze then whether the person basically you're calling a question right so when someone has been convicted factors were analyzed there then should be a separate inquiry into whether the person remains dangerous but a matter of an am the were which is a two thousand and seven he's the board was clear that it was not necessary to then further inquire into the something particularly serious the person was barred but on the withholding approval so the courts encourage one who is reviewing the particularly serious crime determination is limited to ensuring whether the agency relied what she says and on several occasions and she says she went to the police that would simply if she and looks like they just didn't take any event and then they go to the country conditions and they simply seem to discount a pretty strong set of records including th police after she was assaulted and they asked her for additional information about the crime so although police officers may have made comments to her indicating or insulting her and indicating that they were  that they might be unwilling to help her they also took some steps to follow up and to get more details from her similar way when she had gone to the police on other occasions i think she says even on one occasion they came out to her business as part of an investigation and claimed that they asked for money but certainly inappropriate conduct but general corruption of the police department  karen thank you and just to get to this issue of the telephone call and her being credible opposing counsel said that even if you're credibly require corroborating evidence and and that's not that police often work with cartels and gangs with ninety eight percent of all crimes going on punished and so this is beyond just speculation and the judge in libya i don't address why this is not evidence of  and so the only person who had the phone number was the employee and the police because they asked her for her number and she gave them that phone number and then the game's called her on the phone number while she was in the station and direct the teller and she l during the this that question of whether a high risk of death is required for involuntary manslaughter it's not required and the case law that the board cites cite to this contact where a hole is in the fence and there's this high likelihood  motorists from the horses getting out and that is not there is nowhere in the record or in the statute or the jury instruction that a high risk of death is and i think the only convictions that on their face are asylum in withholding or line the criminal the criminal negligence standard has been called without due caution and circumspection and so there is nothing about a high risk of death there and we didn't quote this despite this case in our brief the seminal case on  standing by not that they can ask a few questions and not be a fact about protecting so it's not under this under this acquiescence it's it's clear that asking a few questions asking for money is not sufficient to the duty to protect someone from torture and so here you have it ends and the country conditions evidence established