a motion to reconsider by the board of immigration appeals for abuse of discretion this is a highly differential standard for me understand and review is limited only to the motion to  reconsider the court will find an abuse of discretion on the part of the board if the board's response was made without a rational explanation inexplicably departed from established policies or rested on an impermissible basis after the board dismissed the petitioners appeal and october second without addressing the cat arguments the convention against torture arguments petitioner demeaned as opted to submit a board to a motion to reconsider the petitioner understands that nothing told the appeal for the immigration benefits but this was a decision made by the petitioner at the time to submit the motion to reconsider the motion to reconsider must ask the board to consider additional legal arguments a change of law or any argument that was overlooked and we believe that in our motion to for reconsideration in part we asked the board to consider arguments that it had not expressed specifically those arguments pertaining to the denial of the convention against torture the petitioner was not only republican these arguments in order to receive a different answer but w publishing these arguments in order to receive an answer and this distinguishes it from other cases cited by the government i'm where in fact we did we did present something that had been overlooked to the board of immigration appeals the brief to this court asked the review of that motion to reconsider judges determination that innocence he doesn't qualify for relief and of the convention against torture right you handle the smith that's ok but again the standard for abuse of discretion if we're going back to that and then it's motion to reconsider would be that the board responded without a rational explanation it's not the board responded without a rational conclusion there was no explanation and there were arguments that were specifically raised an abuse of discretion because there was not an explanation to the cat arguments that were raised again they were not we felt that the explanation as such was insufficient  to go back to that part of mexico he had explained that in that part of mexico with the only place where his family was can run or yes i know but if the family is going to kill him if he doesn't join their cartel maybe he should go to a part only place in mexico he can go it's a huge country why can't he go to mexico city you know population twenty million or you know your honor it's a huge country and i'm explaining that the petitioner felt that he needed to go with family he has never been to mexico before he's never been in mexico city has never been in any part of mexico and he felt that at least initially he would need to be with the aunt who was the only person that he knows in mexico and to the extent that he would be there that his presence would be known that would be at that would be dangerous also we have presented that in the country report the the x be handed of all of the drug cartels is very heavy throughout mexico this is a violence that is rampant it's pervasive and  the unique position of being related being known to a high ranking member of the set that's and that does place him in a different position and to answer question more fully or is of course a different argument from going down and being threatened by his uncle's letter saying this cartel is so powerful that is that they keep what they keep tabs on could tell i mean obviously there are thousands of people crossing the border of the united states to mexico every week so is this cartel keeping a record of everybody who comes across you know you whether it might so he will you know create a life for himself well you know runner we had argued that he wouldn't be able to create a life for himself that easily he wouldn't blend know that because you're not you're not making a you're persuasive there is nothing to keep him and he can change his name there's nothing to keep him from locating in the for mexico remote from his uncle now the  the board did address that pages twenty four and twenty five of the record and they address it again in the motion to reconsider it's important to note that the only issue in this case really is whether the board abused its discretion and in denying th cannot show that in this case where the underlying decision the board's decision in this case reconsideration rightly determined that the petitioner failed to identify any error of law or fact in the board's previous decision greater weight and that but this is not an error of water fact in the board's decision if the court has nothing for us further we would just urge that the petition preview be denied i had only wanted to say around or was that with respect to the error we did ask the board to consider all of the arguments that had been made in the motion to reconsider and that in fact is one of the basis for the motion to reconsider it was a flaw as far as we had seen that in terms of not responding fully or explaining our particular arguments for cap which had to do with the  government's role as a government actor in can't and we thought that we had some pretty persuasive arguments and there to make a statement that despite any recent efforts that the government of mexico has made to address the rampant gang related violence that it was speculative how far the government had gone the board didn't respond to that and as counsel pointed out indeed we had also asked the board to address the petitioners credibility can be weighed when in fact he does not have evidence and asked the board to note that when the petitioner is detained there is far less time to prepare his