How have the courts interpreted the phrase "all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture"?

"In determining whether an individual will more likely than not be tortured, 'all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture shall be considered.'" Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(c)(3)). In some cases, where there is nothing in the record to suggest otherwise, a generalized statement that the BIA considered all evidence may be sufficient. Id. at 771. "But, where there is any indication that the BIA did not consider all of the evidence before it, a catchall phrase does not suffice, and the decision cannot stand. Such indications include misstating the record and failing to mention highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence." Id. at 771-72.