there there are two main issues that i want to touch upon here the first one is the they just these findings with respect to the social distinction in their analysis of the particular social group and the second one is the agency's findings respect with respect to the specific intent requirement of the convention against torture claim so starting with the social distinction prong of the particular social group there are two points i want to make about matter first is that the and i think as a foundational matter it's important to point out that our particular social group that was specified to the agency into the immigration judge was indigent mexicans would often millions support and with chronic imperceptible mental illness involving psychosis and with mental disabilities and so the issue  indicates how the immigration judge focused on the lack of legislation that there was to focus on this particular group in fact they said that there are that there is legislation that focuses on protection of individuals mental health in this is mental health decision it helped that married women who are unable to leave a domestic relationship in water mama constitute a particular social group and in doing so it did focus on some of the legislation involved in guatemala but it did so within the domestic violence laws it didn't talk about ma women in didn't talk about whether they were able to leave or not in a domestic setting they talked about the domestic violence laws that are in place and what amongst a bunch of them once a few out of context and so here the immigration judge reliance and saying well the laws that are legislation that protects one thing has never precluded us from finding a protected class or you know it social group number of other settings correct correct so what what force of law having or not having legislation that's why i appreciate the question around and i think even absent legislation the mere fact that there's a government recognition of a class of individuals should be sufficient to show that the  this particular social group exists and on page two or four of the record the immigration just specifically indicated that the mexican government or recognizes this particular types of individuals in fact the types of individuals that she mentioned that the government recognizes are individuals with mental specifically she said in the in the two thousand and ten the our ports the mental health professionals who are part of the mexican government because the public health care system  recognizes members of the mexican society who identify classify as mentally ill individuals and whether or not they have a meal or support and they and they also suffer from mental disability but no one else does and so outside of his mental health professionals who work for the government her position is that no one else in society does but we think that that is one of the main points the fact that the mexican government actually does recognize them should be a strong indicator in your honor the focus on legislation would be  it would be a test that would be unworkable because certainly sometimes the lack of legislation would be part of the prosecution in some instances so focusing on the legislation itself wouldn't should not be the only test in the fact that there was government recognition here  should be a strong indicator that this group exists and i know his family said they would help him correct the brother said that he would try to provide financial support them yes so then how does that suggested he's without familiar support because the familiar support within this context your honor is that the type of support that what would prevent him from being institutionalized and so it would require individual you know require a consistent care for him  and you know if you can provide money that doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't be institutionalized there and so and there's testimony in the record that indicated that he had support from in the individual when he was here and even here he was having a difficult time and so the in the mood immigration judges   the petition has been here for several years and recently he was held to the tension center and then he was released on bond and while he was released on bond he was arrested again for a criminal act and part of that was because he was not taking his medicine anymore and he's now back in detention and he's been there for four years and the second thing is in criminal detention mental health attention is civil detention he's held at by the immigration authorities and vote there the statistics show that ten percent might be institutionalized at the time of the report was made it doesn't highlight the type of individuals that those ten percent comprised of and the two factors that i want to focus on that is we're seeing that with him now in the immigration setting and he also testified that his father was into too tional eyes when the family called the police against severe domestic violence and he kept being brought over to the mental institution because of the father's criminal act so our position is that his particular characteristics in his mental health and would leave him to you to get institutionalized and would we be within the ten percent who might be insecure but i mean that's a pretty speculative connection where you have someone who's never been institutionalized except for criminal conduct to suggest that worried to be returned that somehow because there is a small percentage of the population that can be detained in mental institutions that he would be when he never has been before that i'm just having trouble that's pretty that's a pretty big leap you have any case or anything that would a lay our concerns on that point on the fact that he hasn't been institutionalized before and so he right i mean it's saying but but we think he would be and therefore he would be a risk i don't know how we connect the dots without either some evidence or some case that says well those kind of circumstances let you somehow meld speculation together to get something concrete in terms of particular is concern i don't believe there is speculation or for a variety of reasons when we're looking at the record starting off with his personal experiences with his father the circumstances that were present with his father when his father was institutionalized were due to criminal acts which we have seen from the petitioner here when he's not when he's not taking his medication so that is one example where it's we want our position is with it's not speculative and the second point to that your honor is that the record also indicates that meant to hold the mental institutions are one of the few places where or three seventy eight he was able to get the medication and mexico now i go wrong i don't believe that's correct manner because he was diagnosed here in the united states and the brother didn't know about his health situation until it was just listen once he was in immigration detention so i i i will double check that that part of the record but i don't believe that's correct so let me get this straight you're saying that even though the medication is available in mexico in order to receive it you must be in a mental institution i think you have it the mental institutions are the ones who are able to give it to him and so he would have to where does that where in the record does it say i want to make one quick point to the cat your honor this case is not about a lack of resources case and i think that's one of the things that we really want to highlight as part of the catalyst if you are this case is about a continued systematic approach of the mexican government to continue to torture individuals with mental health issues and that the strongest things that we have on record  record also indicates that the mexican government has denied access to independent investigators regarding the mental health facilities and to monitor the progress that has been going on and i want to point that specifically out and then i i will reserve the rest of our time the  clearly wrong and the record supports that and five sixty six and five fifty seven and these two parts of the record indicate that this is not a lack of resources that this has nothing to do with lakhs of resources and so what was of the rest of my time with thank you thank you your honors may please the court adam kaplan on behalf of the me judge tilburg the record that you were referring to before talks about where the father would go in mexico to get medicine and that portion of the record actually support our argument that you have to go to the hospital because they are three seventy seven it says how often he would go to the hospital and that whenever he ran out of medicine is when he was reinstitution lies to to get more suggesting you have to go to the hospital but you actually have to be institutionalized in the hospital to get medications yes that's correct and i think that the record shows that the father was institutionalized for a period and he remained there and that's where he was medicated and other areas of the record also show your honor five thirty nine five forty one five forty two oftentimes the only doctors available to prescribe medicine are in the institutions and people need to people end up being institution so my understanding of the record is it was not as simple of as his brother going to the institution picking up medicine for his father or his father going there and getting medicine the record is very clear that access to medicine is really in the institutions and the record at five thirty nine shows that people there's no alternative for people who need psychotropic medications like petitioner then to be institutionalized where is that in the record that there's no  five thirty nine five forty one i'm sorry who you need to i don't think that that shows the number of people who are institutionalized versus the number of people who need medication and it also doesn't account for factors like the ability to pay to get either medicine or go to private brother says he has money to buy this so at one point you're saying well that doesn't matter because if you want to get it you're going to get institutionalized and now you're saying well no the ten percent factor is in that he testified that he would try to try to give some money towards medication and the medication he's been helping with has been in the united states and so there's testimony about how much more expensive it is mess in mexico and he did not think he would be able to cover the he would need living expenses and the brother would not be able to essentially survive without medicine and without assistance you're on i see a little time amaechi wanted to make clear i think very very critical issue that's coming before this court a number of times this case is not the and there's there's three reasons if i could very briefly say the record in vegas is not like the record here men women and children are being raped sexually abused there's fo sterilizations to hide and want the pregnancies that result people are duct tape tied down to their bench is left to death kate and urinate on themselves for years people dying in restraints people kept in cages people for decades and the report show that in two thousand and ten there was a ten year follow up on the initial study from two thousand and they found the same people tied to the same wheelchair that they were and initially so it's a vastly different record no effort there's no effort to stop these practices and this is these are medical treatment facilities these practices have no place no therapeutic justification the records clear the wrapper to on torture has made that clear ok thank you very much court i do not mean to sound callous but the court has considered this basic scenario many times in the past and agencies denial of leave for protection here is in line with this  or bad things for lack of a better word is not persecution on account of a protected ground it would be wonderful if all the hot and the hospitals in the world had the resources of a johns hopkins or a mass general but that simply is not the case and there's just no evidence in this record that the mexican government is specifically targeting this protge of particular social group with the intention of  at best it's lack of resources apathy lack of education and that's just not enough under under  guess there's the argument there's a whole series of other conditions and i do know that they i guess is ten years old at this point in terms of what those conditions were is there sufficient new evidence in the record evidence it was mostly about sexual assault of a woman shoulder and human trafficking the stuff that petitioner and so would potentially be subjected to the abuses that the problem restraints the overmedication that was i've you know unfortunate circumstances but just not set forth a claim for relief under the immigration laws under the under the convention protection against torture and again if there's no other questions i will  have to be there under these conditions and so the fact that he was in there multiple times for aggressive behavior which is one of the things that has gotten petitioner detained here is indicative of a strong factor that that's what he will at least be institutionalized even if it's not indefinitely it