rebuttal i'll try to help you but if you're on the clock ok understood you did like to bring the three key errors that the n t media in determining that my client not specifically the agency erred in failing to consider the rosenthal declaration now that declaration is important for two reasons number one is established she is the causal connection that will lead my client to be tortured in mexican mental institution secondly and perhaps even more importantly it dresses the issue of what of the atomised and the intent that her mood sees the physical and chemical restraints and mexican mental institutions  claim that you had to show specific intent by the people involved that they intended to cause pain and torture etc acquiescence is not enough where in your documentation do you show that there are specific people who have shown or would show specific intent to torture your client in that koreans me exactly back to number one that the discriminate that the pervasive discrimination against mentally ill in mexico causes the government to segregate them indeed it as a policy measure as a matter of policy it makes in the medications necessary to address mental illness only available in its mental institutions secondly the discrimination and the belief that and the belief that the mentally ill are lesser and are deserving a punishment causes the cock causes the government and its employees and its charge in hand in this case for your client to be tortured i don't see that the rosenthal decoration would be a good stand for and what the and what the white cap requires is push a little more as i read the rules and call their courageous and if i read on a r four forty nine it seems to me everything that you said comes to comes to a head in the a r four forty nine array of other human rights violations on a threat to his right to life if he is returned to mexico that's so more likely than not that's the best he can say based on everything he knows but regulations require that the torture have the specific intent to inflict severe harm up in what i read to you because i mean it seems to me that everything rosenthal said in the declaration and the last comes down to based on what the regulations are based on what i know the government is doing based on that it seems more likely than not that chevron is going to be tortured body did but rosenthal never does say the government has a specific  in the i guess number one that you have to look at the question of countries conditions as they currently exist and number two it found that the that did mexican government behavior did not rise to the level of torture because it because they had that he had been previously institutionalized but was in a private institution that his family is specifically said that if he needs treatment that he would again be placed in a private institution and receive the best care available so with no disrespect to him how does he in his situation in effect have standing to even argue about public institutions he's never been one as  family ok all of the families located here in the united states now while they are willing to do what they can for their son their brother their brother there is no there is no guarantee that they will have the wherewithal gamely the use of physical long term physical and chemical restraints but doesn't the rosenthal declaration make a distinction between the public in the private facilities and say that the private facilities have better substantially similar if not near identical conditions and i think petitioner kind of concedes this because she hangs or had on her he has his head on well the conditions are the same therefore there must have somehow transform into specific intent but as vega said you look at the current conditions and the current conditions are very similar you have mr rosenthal's and not only his declaration but his disability rights international report which sent investigators out to these institutions interview care workers and there is disturbed is is people that read reports are one investigator saw a woman straight jacketed as i mentioned in my brief and when he asked why she was straight jacketed a care worker released the strait jacket and she started beating herself against the wall until she bled he explained that we do this because we have no other way to protect them from their behavior and part of its resources question right absolutely and i think i also mention in the brief that the country evidence suggests that only two to three percent of the mexican budget goes to the mental health institutions we have a similar problem in our country don't we do you think somebody could bring a cat claim against our country absolutely not so i would just move on and say that not only was no specific intent shown either by the care workers and then the mexican government turns a blind eye to what these care workers are doing or that there is any evidence that the mexican government set up these conditions to specifically intend to torture mentally ill patients but the agency also rested their decision on another ground which is it's kind of speculation you do have mr rosenthal's declaration which comes out and says it's more likely than not he's going to end up in a public institution he's going to be tortured but the other record evidence doesn't really bear that out it's conflicting at best as judge smith said he was placed in a private institution in the past never been in a public institution and he's previously been deported to mexico and he lived on the streets or what the friend for a month and a half before his family placed him in this private institution as family said even though it would be hard they would do what they can to support him so it's speculation he has improved that each link in his speculative chain is going to wind up with him being in a public mental health institution going back to your first point isn't it possible that what may start out as not intentional inadvertence could ripen into intentionality if the government knew about the conditions and deliberately decided for whatever reason not to do anything about it just find him and i would agree but there's just no evidence that they've just not very good at it but there's no evidence that they have gotten together and said let's keep these conditions the same because we want to punish these people for being mentally ill i just don't think the record bears that out so halfway through i'll move over to regulatory basis for administrative closure as it recognizes just a docket tool that the board or the immigration judge uses to manage this docket lee docket as efficiently as it can and there's a lot of different things that go into why i the agency administers its stock and it would basically be reaching into decisions and reviewing decisions whether to prosecutorial prosecutorial he does discretion only close the case or whether it's managing his priorities right and i don't think that's a good practice we would have trouble with our own dr correct and i think that's what matter of that it is going recognizes that all courts have problems with their dockets including the circuit courts and we need to have a you know some way that we can manage it and that's what it seems to me that one could construe this argument is not that ministry of closure per se was required but rather due process rights were  right i think that that was the argument that due process required administrate of closure in this case and as much as it can be said to be some form of relief due process at least absence of due process there's no right to a discretionary form of relief and in the end administrative closer is a discretionary decision by the agency to close a case but if it can be read as an overarching he didn't receive due process in this hearing i think the record shows that he clearly received the process he was due a matter of mam and the statute even congress intended for proceedings to go forward in the cases of incompetent aliens even if they can't appear at the hearing and as long as certain safeguards are put into place to protect the aliens as i understand it in this case over and participated in the proceedings he was found competent by the a to participate and he did not assert any save gars protect his rights correct and even though he participated in the hearing it was found competent and he had counsel and he had his family testified before the immigration judge the immigration judge went on to put in several safeguards he found him credible and he allowed recesses to take his medicine and i think in the immigration judge's decision you know several safeguards that he put into place that this court has suggested for franco litigation purposes and the board has suggested but in all those cases it was incompetent pro se aliens here mr savva and was participating in his hearing  clearly his testimony demonstrates some delusions and there's no quibbling with his mental diagnosis he's mentally ill but the immigration judge put several safeguards in place that didn't limit the testimony in any way found him credible eleven percent all the evidence he could possibly present and let three counsel testify or question the witnesses so if it can be read as an overarching due process violation first he hasn't shown any prejudice yes pretty much shuts that down saying that there is no specific intent by the mexican government to torture and i don't know how he gets over the prejudice  but even procedurally he received all the process he was do under the statute and under the board precedent and under this court's precedent quite frankly i see my time is running out so if there's no further questions from the bench i will let me just ask one question is there any regulation that specifically authorizes this administrative closure proceeding or is it simply a matter of practice and common law from the b i a decision that's correct there's no statutory or sword and stop it in its tracks and the boards then now we need to take a look at these decisions overall and make the decision yourself and not let the party control the docket so there is no regulatory basis just  open is the question of when when and mere negligence it over time then becomes the sit in ted now counsel for the government talked a lot about the mexican government some passing laws and they're just not good and iraq mr sharon if that is a member that is a member of the class that the mexican government intends torture more over mr shopper and it's particularly for at risk for the forms of torture that we're discussing because he has history of