morning one petitioner six protection of the convention against torture they must show is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removed definition of torture must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering now when i respond it is an immigration court responding at that time when they put forth a cat crying convention against torture if that claim is granted by the immigration court but then overturned by the b i a to be a a what it must do documentary evidence first of all the the respondent of the position or and her mother both testified based on their own experience and knowledge about the type of torture they would face by him as thirteen gang members if she was removed to el salvador now that testimonial evidence consisted of the the responding the petitioner testifying that because she has no family in or salvador she had been in the united states since two thousand  that if she were removed to or salvador that she would be homeless so not speculation would be a fact she would have no way to live the mother testified that they are aware that when people are homeless especially women that they are vulnerable to criminal activity by gang members in fact the petitioner's mother testified at her hearing that they were aware of a person of a woman similar situation that was killed by gang members and then to support these claims the petitioner had an expert witness that came in and testif specifically about each step of this process and it was supported by evidence and what this expert witness testified was that these gay members in all salvador they target women especially those that are homes that the first step and he gave supporting testimony for that including documentary evidence he then testified that gang members would that the homeless people would be vulnerable to gay members criminal activity because they would be approached and either demanded that they participate in criminal activity or offer sexual favors in return now once that's deny which the petitioner would have done then the petitioner would have been subject to criminal violence by the gang members beatings rape potentially murder again supported by the evidence that was the evidence that was put forth in the petitioners hearing it was substantial and relief was granted by the immigration judge now when the board of immigration appeals looked at strung together a series of suppositions without evidence to support that the immigration judge did but the record is clear that these were not su these were facts and these facts were supported by evidence the board focused really in their written decision really focused on only on the testimony of the expert witness the board said the immigration judge was largely largely relied on the testimony of the responde expert witness to find the gang members would likely rate and or kill the response ok the tone of of this order is such that the immigration judge relied heavily on an expert witness however when these responses at the time are having an asylum hearing they're often criticized for not having expert witnesses for not having corroborative evidence for only having their own testimony or maybe some secondary evidence in the form of supporting documents so when we have an expert witness it should not be frowned upon because this expert witness testif and have supporting evidence to support the testimony i didn't get any indication that the b i e frowned on having expert testimony at the hearing though what he said was ramos could be targeted by m s thirteen or burial eighteen with sexual violence and may also be targeted with extortion or taxation that's correct if i can comment so when when you have an expert witness testifying the board seemed to turn this decision on the uses of the word could or may with testimony if if a person was to testify that it was likely then that would be objected to as being speculative because it she she if if she could this could happen to her and based on her supporting testimony it has happened to her and based on if this happened to her it's happened to someone that she like she had the but when you take in totality of the evidence which is what the b i have supposed to do because it's clear from their written order that their decision was based on those words could it may i don't think you can ignore the rest of the evidence i think the b i a did ignore the rest of the evidence as it wasn't mentioned anywhere near a written order the only evidence that was mentioned in their written order but the testimony of the expert witness and so we have to notice and think that this turned on the words could or may but it's a fact that this happens in th to people in her position that was supported by testimony and documentary evidence and also the fact that the salvadorian government has taken steps to control the gang violence or you know to address corruption even though they may not have been successful your honor so how can you say that the government would ac salvador government has has been for so long has been involved in corruption and collusion and that's documented in the record for for them to come out after a there was a treaty between these gangs where the killings did go down that treaty is now gone ok and they are salvadoran government you know for them too for if you're if you're if you're prioritizing remedying this situation with gang members in violence especially against women the el salvador government simply is not even touching scratching the surface on this ok for them to you know i don't think it's you know that the monthly homicide rate had recently dropped by half that means you know fifteen hundred people are getting murdered instead of bring thousands that doesn't put a person in a much better position but if it's not at we often is that if the government as taken steps even though they can't hear the entire problem i mean hasn't the government for example reported arrests government employees for gang connections isolated gang leaders in prison in gays in police against them a thirteen and they have task forces to combat these gangs likely you are but i would say that i think it's in the record so it's in the reglan is not likely this one it is right ok and that means that the salvador government what they're doing and what the united states is trying to get them credit for is fixing a situation that they created that they hope to create and it to me it's hard to give the government credit for something that said festering for so long on that huge see it in was in the order they observe that the motley homicide rate had recently dropped by half ok that's after years and years of it being more than half so to give the all star and on government credit your point it's also after the gangs engaged in some truth themselves that's correct and that and as soon as th homicide rate that dropped by hand went back to the same levels as it was before sometimes worse to the point where the united states government caught the embassy thirteen a terrorist organization that was board did was it ignored the testimony of the responded and her mother and it i think it was a little bit dismissive of the expert witnesses testimony simply because he  w the words could and may that's what i have  good morning runners meet please the court my name is david shore i represent the attorney general of the united states in this case the board immigration appeals reversed the immigration judges grant of protection under the convention against torture regulations  explaining that the petitioner miss ramos nunez presented a speculative claim based on generalized evidence of crime and corruption in el salvador but let's arced standard group review here the standard substantial evidence supports the board's determination that the immigration judge clearly or yesterday that yes the argument novo and if the court were to find an error then not conduct the clearly error review but would remain for the board to do so petitioner however has not articulated an error in the board's  g the immigration judges decision the immigration judge and be overstated the evidence and set forth a chain of suppositions saying ok the petitioner will be homeless when she returns as a result she'll lack protection a reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite firm conviction that a mistake has been made here the record taken as a whole shows that police actively combat gangs gangs were designated you know salvador as terror groups and there are instances of corruption yes but the record shows that there are investigated and prosecuted that's not just corruption is not a problem or that violence against women  attempt to address that problem with these specialized any records the instances in which this really is given to somebody as far as the two sticks one is granted no your hon think that's before before any removal proceedings are initiated against a person people who just voluntarily put forth an application i believe something like thirty record and that's asylum which has a lower burden of proof the government is yes and to criminal acts by street gangs this court has stated evidence of widespread gang related crime fails to compel a finding that a particular cap applicant has carried his or her member the generalized report of gang related violence fails to compel a finding of torture or acquiescence in torture because officials combat gang crime and reports have been effective policing and societal corruption decision if it's supported by reasonable success on program evidence in the record considered as a whole is correct however under the same standard this panel can rule against the board if there the standard of review that's the standard of review is substantial i mean we can rule against the board if we find that substantial evidence doesn't support it yes yeah it is i'm just addressing that because that was addressed right and and and again in rebuttal if we look at the record as a whole there is substantial evidence that should compel this panel to disagree with the board the substantial evidence comes in the form of the testimony by the petitioner the testimony by the petitioner of mother the testimony by the expert witness supporting documentary evidence that at least the in any want to believe or hopefully this panel to believe that she is she qualifies for this protection now in regards to government acquiescence it's pretty simple there's supplementary evidence in the record that shows widespread violence against women and widespread targeting of the poor both of which what the petitioner would be she's a woman should be homeless there's no family support the for protection or financial support none whatsoever and the immigration judge considered this the board ignored it that virtually high percentage of sexual assaults against women go on published in or salvador this isn't about their own about the government combating you know having a civil war with the gang members this is about them protecting its citizens and which they have historically fail to do so so i think when we when one looks at el salvador's ability willingness to that this planet should be held to consider the substantial evidence in favor of the petitioner fact that salvador acquiesces to work could happen and what will likely happen because well the statute calls for it's not an absolute it says more likely than not doesn't say it's going to happen it must happen one hundred percent it's more likely