you and he's asking you to review both the merits of his liking you can bank against torture and the process that claim received in the immigration look let me just and i don't mean to short circuit anything here but i feel that i probably should express to you what's my greatest concern here and that is what can be derived if anything from just five words government is willing to assist why shouldn't we as a review in court a court which must determine what those words mean and i will concede i am having difficulty doing just that simply send it back and ask the ask the b i a or ask the i j a to be more explicit about what was intended here indeed the case if that is indeed factual wouldn't that necessarily have to be reached by an explanation of the government is willing to assist that  there would have to be some further indication of just what it is the government knows what it is the government is willing to do and whether or not that's assisted just well i agree with everything you said your honor so this really isn't as framed a due process question is it this is in our courts precedent clearing the i think the one case a case that you have referred  to in the briefing is this court's interest in having a record that we can adequately review i believe judge effect becker wrote that opinion and that would seem to me to be what we have here believe that my client would have a right to counsel and would have also the right to have his testimony developed and those are important issues that the i j a skipped over in the  and were going to make sure that nobody made those life i'm comfortable you would expect anyone to be stupid enough to keep going to the police to complain complain about the law that would be an invitation to getting beaten up or worse so that that's not a very helpful  disagree only with respect to the question of whether he was adequately advised of his right to counsel it's true that he received a slip of paper telling him that he had a right to counsel at the end of the asylum interview am not sure i understand what you're saying mischief and he received the form after the interview with the with the asylum officer yes the form that was advising him of his right to counsel when who didn't ask him whether he had to count so or whether he wanted time to get one she simply advised him or announce to him that he had no right to additional time to get it's had count were represented by lawyers who didn't appear at the hearing and sometimes it's simply a mistake none of that happened here what happened here is he was told you don't have a counsel and that's that and i would i would point out your honor i'd repeat what chief just judge smith wrote in the it not talk case that it's it's not sufficient where an alien has a right to counsel simply to notify him of that right he's also going to have question i mean most of the facts are on dispute and since you seem to have ruled on the question of acquiescence that's that's what we get into and i had had one argument we would make is that the facts already in the victim approached the police and was told that we can't do a thing with the police accepted a complaint and didn't act on in this case the facts are much stronger because the police actually intervened in the complaint process right of its inception and actively discouraged mr race of from filing a complaint on the ground that he would be harmed by mr avila if he did so the fact that mr case under the cap for that at claim in the meantime mr valerie's was counsel is now looking for in the process of developing additional evidence from ecuador to establish who this at  on the spot what i would want to say is that what's not in doubt and any stage of this proceeding where there's never been and is the question of why mr  this country today and why he's remained even though it meant spending almost all of two thousand and twenty in prison and he's here because he fears for his own life and the lives of his children and other his case checks all the boxes for it can't claim is a technical legal question i sincerely think it does but whether he gets a real chance to prove his case is a matter that's much more profound judgment  i would say that that's true of the entire transcript i ask you please look at that transcript again your honour's please consider what it would mean if we knew that this is the best our country can do for people who ask for our we know we we will and this court has painstakingly in years past a detention very closely to some of those transcripts and without getting into much detail it led to some some positive actions being taken so thank you very much for your argument mr family we'll have you back on rebuttal thank you robin you did reserve time some quote dark business i worry i interpret that as proceed as your own risk so why would he go back to the same department we've been told this guy's involved in some drug business we know that by the  way later on he finds out that apparently villa knows that he went to the police department this is not in these kinds of regimes people in the right mind don't think that way they don't think let me go running to kill him that would be evidence of the fact that bill is not really in position to do him harm i disagree with your characterization of what happened police actually call that if you let maint may i just return you to to the subject that i asked about and that is the meaning of five words and i guess most especially one of the five words although  there's another that may be less than clear i think it is what does government mean is this i mean is that referring to law enforcement and this so is it referring to law enforcement in illinois to toronto's well if that is the cased and information he provided was that limited in that obscure doesn't that really implicate the obligation of the i j a to have officer the judicial officer including an administrative officer isn't serving as an advocate when she or he is developing a record which makes the process more complete and provides a record further for adequate review upon appeal i see nothing in the nature of advocacy about trial court in philadelphia with cases just kept coming it was shuttling back to see that was nothing compared to the work of the immigration judges as i understand it but nevertheless is that is probably the only tribunal were almost every decision they make is really a matter of life and death you know they get it wrong and you know that not talking about dollar damages your pushing court to run off corporations you're talking about possibly that the improvements in seeing someone to their death or at least extreme torture so despite their horrendous workload they really do have an obligation to do more than this and i agree with what the chief just said developing the record as not being an advocate it's really doing your job it's putting us in a position where we can do our job and review it but it's also putting the immigration judge in a position where he or she can make a reasoned and informed determination about whether or not of matricular petition or does suffer here it's it's  i don't know what that means or what it's based on bit and i don't know why you say you can take this message back but it makes it impossible for us to do our job when we see this kind of very very short dismissive statement even understanding that there are about a time to sit down and write one thousand five hundred and twenty page opinions on every case we don't expect them to but we do expect them to give us enough to let us know that the iranians claim was seriously considered and that the reason the aliens claim is is based upon sound reasoning and legal determination and not just the next case mentality let's move this out here i got fifty more cases the court my doc the best i can say is the fair opportunity present claims and have it reviewed by the immigration right thank you very much i want to concur in my colleague judge mckee's observations and this was something i intended to do in this argument and i forgot and i'm glad judge mckee mentioned it  of the difficulty of managing such a busy docket and none of that none of our question should be taken as suggesting any insensitivity to that i would want our own contention that all that is required of the immigration judge is that we review the record and grasp the claims and i think that that is is frankly wrong specifically