long before it was ever assured that her son would ever be paroled from state prison in addition the petitioner submitted testimony and evidence about a robbery that his brother suffered while he was soon after being deported two hundred was not harmed my understanding is that these gangs follow a code of loyalty and blood so one would expect that if he renounced his ties to the game he would have been on both sides of the border perhaps but clearly he wasn't harmed in the united states and he was at the very least assured of a certain amount of safety in the united states that he wouldn't sort of upon being deported to honduras because over there i'm not absolutely certain your honor i believe it might be i don't know how that might be changed right now in the middle of the pandemic but certainly it is possible that a claim could be returned to the united states probably happened to the united states should his case he remand should there be more proceedings associated with this case because you have a very very recent contact with your point re since not too recent i spoke to the family i haven't been able to speak to him directly and a normal life and hunter safety stance you know sixty six or seven days out of the week just in the house stealing himself not being able to work not being able to live a normal life those are certainly issues that the i g consider and the likelihood of that it is not more like it is and not that petitioner will be tortured and honduras that clearly erroneous standard was appropriately applied because the immigration judge's findings were predictive matters and that and the bo determined that the immigration judge made a set of inferences that were not compelled by the evidence and the inferences were that m s o teen gang members were murder petitioner although as your court says as the course question point he wasn't harmed in prison after human mounts his membership in m s or king and that was back in two thousand and six and he clearly testified that he could have been harmed and the gang had the ability to hire him but he was not harmed and that is a substantial factor in determining whether or not it's predicted that m s o team would harm him in one hundred s the nd was that are they entitled to our consideration d because the i j a did not and could not have made the finding that he necessarily would have been hard by police in honduras we take that point that there is evidence that they have returning centers where individuals are scrutinized when they st arrive back in the country but nothing said what happened to a person after he was so scrutinized and it could be that the police identified him saw that he had gang tattoos but petitioner also said that he has evidence that he had renounced just gang so there's nothing to say that that wasn't the factor in fact that he has not been detained in honduras so that was one of the lynchpins of the immigration judges that it was more likely than not that he would be detained or that he would be harmed by police because he had a former gang membership and those were the issues i'm sorry i understand what you're saying but that was arou into whether those past events mean necessarily that he would be harmed in the future and tell him just but if you're what you're saying is that anything in the findings were earlier only and the question is does the board have to articulate a stronger justification to apply that finding to  i wouldn't say that they have to apply a high label but it would just be whether or not the label or the the finding itself is speculative and that can be a matter of fact if there's nothing to support it and i think that's what the board was trying  i would imagine only if by labeling them speculative the court couldn't refute whether or not that was in fact correct protection they do have to take facts into consideration in determining whether that's always going to be predictive determination and so the facts will never be hard in fact that he has definitely already been tortured that's rarely the case didn't was accepted as an expert at all in terms of human rights training of the police officers but she did not say that every gang member necessarily would be either detained by the police or that he will be tortured by the police and the evidence she gave about the disproportionate use of force by police seem to involve gang members who are armed or acting violently in particular neighborhoods in the country and that that's where the and there were several instances where she said she could not answer the question was asked because it wasn't within her expertise are you saying though that there was no evidence to support the clear i take your point that i think where we still difference on the issue whether or not it's predictive finding that speculative is necessarily have to be taken as correct we understood the board to be saying that in so far as a predictive findings were in french as are speculative that they could not credit the council you've exceeded your time there any other questions  thank you thank you