government is actively trying to combat an activity there are two problems with this holding that are pertinent here st under the be a standard the actions of the visuals at lower levels of government would seem to be irrelevant to the issue of government acquiesce be standard it doesn't matter whether the government is actually effective in addressing private torture because we could be totally controlled by gangs and so long as the government is reorganizing the police force from time to time doing things of that nature or the  case i suppose that would also you know go to the likelihood of torture that that be reduced what i'll say is i think this case is is pretty clearly on one side of the art this is a case where  standard with the board was willful acceptance and this court and other courts have said no no no it's willful blindness so you have to have someone turning a blind eye to what the nd step well your honor it's it's a it's a willful blindness and then a a failure to act it's having a duty or a legal responsibility and then you know you don't intervene you don't intervene and it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't say you intervene poorly you just madrigal involve four police officers and you have doesn't have an official action there here we're talking about purely private actors and i would ask the court to look at the regulations and also garcia and the two cases that the board because of their gang traders it's exactly the same facts now mr mark on how to how to how to a few of the government as well but if you look at what it i board can't expect to be mind readers and he didn't bring it up at all he said initially and that you know pretends to that's what it was but that's not what it is now so you know in terms of the board you know air in there that's that's not the case  then and i said before then is that two thousand and three case where the board set where this court said no we're not talking about willful acceptance of blindness and then in particular andrade point the regulation talks about a a duty to intervene and then to prevent or to prevent and it says there was no act it was acquiescence because of you know based on what is said in the regulation so  that while the national government is taking steps the local government that actually is on the ground is not in need maybe more than just is not maybe will this is themselves to  honor that's andrei there was evidence that there were that police at the local level taking bribes and in this case the immigration judge never distinguished between local or or national he spoke in terms of said you know there is corruption in judges and pleased but he never said local or national and the board in its decision cited the evidence the record pointed to the findings of many of the findings of immigration judge and then to the immigration judges find you know holding where he said i know they're making a great effort but they can't control gang violence and that's just a ridiculous standard you can never control ever get it under control but if you look at honduras and if you want to go to africa see that you know that's it didn't it did distinguish between victims of gang violence but you know it's no secret that gang violence is not like there so the hunter and government while plagued with gang violence and up until recently it was the most dangerous the it could be your honor you know petitioner even though i mean the holding i'm left with is that he somehow after so many years of the united states even though he's a fifty year old male go back to honduras and somehow being dangerous i'm left with what the immigration judge found the board didn't make that finding it just bypassed it i'm left with that but in terms of of corruption you or fear of gang violence because he's a snitch or a traitor that's never come with this court said you know that's all well and good but the government efforts there's government efforts there it's imperfect but these are private actors and there's a private actors and because the government's making efforts that's enough based on a regulation to not show acquiesce i don't know what's going to mr hand then as it's anyone's guess i mean i have a different view of this case and that's that's not really relevant now but now he's fifty years old he's been a career criminal here since he came in and one thousand nine hundred and eighty s were announced or gang and that in two thousand and eight was beaten up anything in fact they at two points they said that they based its decision on the the evidence found by the immigration judge and they also cited to the immigration judges findings where even though their governments trying they simply can't control gang violence again that's an impossible standard and the government the immigration judge never talked about at a local level at all he's talking no i was not i was not referring to the local level i was referring to x to them and other markings has been acquiescence it's very send it back to the board the leaders that they bypass that they didn't address it they just assumed the immigration judge is finding and that would be fair for the board's would dress it but if this court finds that there has not been