it please the court my name is susan hill and i represent the petitioners in the drano family this is the second time that the family's been before this court and this all stems from the terrible incident that happened to their daughter diana whose names are at the time  salvador and i know the courts where the record but basically briefly she was kidnapped and ultimately targeted to become the woman or wife of a gang member who was actually serving in prison at the time she managed to escape the family fled here she was threatened and the family threatened if they did not comply they came here they were granted protection under convention against torture by the judge ultimately it was overturned on  appeal the family still remains in danger today they filed a motion to reopen in twenty fifteen demonstrating how country conditions have changed and that they still remain in danger to this day the basis of the motion to reopen for the change country conditions was that evidence had come to light now identifying demonstrative the that there exists a particular social group in el salvador that diana belongs to that particular social group and that she would be persecuted in the family is that a change country condition just don't sound like it if you use the words i mean now we have more information about how women are treated so the conditions have changed conditions have changed just your honor it's e understand you have arguments the conditions have changed but it seems strange to say that a condition that has changed is that we have a group that's recognized yes because there's a pattern and a practice against these women against this group that had wasn't there before there was there was no evidence and if there's no evidence in existence to identify the group and now it is recognized the society recognizes the group and that it's particularly and that has a social distinction you see what i'm asking though i mean it doesn't seem like a change country condition it seems like a changed recognition of what has been there all along well and i understand your honor and the conditions are inherently tied up in the definition and requirements for particular social group that group must be distinct and it must be recognized by society now society recognizes that this group exists so if it does not have the social distinction and the recognition so what's the group again it is young women  salvador who have been targeted for sexual harm and via group has something and distinct before it has been interesting correct your honor has not been as distinct because of the spike in how these women are treated and the emergence of this yeah i'm just having trouble with how the people are treated defining weather conditions are different how people are treated generally when a person is treated in a certain manner that is a condition within the country these women are now viewed as property yes there was violence against women in the past but now society recognizes that they're being treated property as objects and they're being used as pawns in a way for the games to exert influence and control to do it in three ways first they exert their power over the directly and they use it to gain status and power within the gang they also use  her in between game they weren't doing it when they kidnapped her i mean we are they were i didn't hear your question they were like that they didn't think like that when they when they tried to take her originally the judge determined that she was kidnapped for i'm talking about in reality you're talking about change conditions the condition was them now there's a new condition now yes the new condition is new condition is that we now know something more about the old condition the new condition society now recognizes the group so the group has evolved the pattern has evolved and it now has emerged it has lessened it wasn't at the time of the kidnapping no it was not there was not a pattern and practice kidnapping didn't result from the condition new condition that now exists down there it was well it can't have it both ways it either was part of that or it wasn't it seems to me when when every answer one it's sort of undermines your argument it correct it well your honor she  was designated for sexual harm yes but society did not recognize that there was a group of people that this was occurring to now this is a pattern and practice that has been in place it's evolving it is becoming problematic and now this group it's similar to when homosexuals perhaps were not recognized as being targeted in other countries and now it's recognize that they are viewed as a separate articulated i read through the record i did not represent them down below but it appears that it was based upon really honestly it was not very well articulated down below the asylum application just said see the respondents or the applicants statement and the statement didn't articulate a specific social group and i believe that is a part of the problem of this case and why it does need to be remanded to have that social group articulated in light of the new pattern and practice its existing ok but so your position is that i can't remember the year now but two thousand and seven to those i can remember but whenever the five thousand seven yeah but i thought time the this particular social group that you're alleging now there just wasn't enough evidence to support it was it was perhaps more and more fierce because now as as the evidence that was submitted with the motion to reopen demonstrated young school girls now view this as part of everyday life that they belong to this particular social group parents are scared they can't even speak up so violence generally was existing yes but now society recognizes that these particular victims are in singled out for significant harm as a member of this group because they are viewed as property and objects and that is just the way society is moving forward at this point after this case was last in front of the judge and the b i a i only said that there were no change country conditions as it's been argued this is rolled up inherent to the particular social group definition the b i did not pass judgment on the existence or the definition of this particular social group therefore the matter would need to be remanded back to the judge to make some further factual findings about the particular social group and time remaining i'd like to petitioners could've appealed the immigration judges denial of asylum long ago they do not and they could have filed a timely motion it looks looks like a pretty huge mistake counsel and in retrospect i do not sure i remember another want is a redo of the prior case and the supreme court has said look we need finale here we can aliens have a good reason to want to see what about the concern the didn't explain what it was doing very well one where they asked for reopening based on asylum or withholding that's that's the title there's not there's no mention of cat in there well then we can ignore cat the agent says the problem is that the agency referred to tens of he does motions broadly for good reason that my only quote i only meant to say that it's a very slim rationale and part of it deals with cat which whether it was ok to do or not and i mean the problem with their saying it but it doesn't support denial for asylum it deals with cats if you take that sentence away and just put it aside for a second it's pretty sure is just for five cents this right in the end and i'm just wondering whether under the presence of the circuit that's enough of shift in emphasis in the state department's country reports i cheated just a little bit because i looked at i looked at the most recent ones there is there is a change from two thousand and fourteen which is the ones that were cited i think here if you look at two thousand and fifteen two even to the reports that they cited there is a change from what was originally before the board well known rape violence towards women was widespread in what's the big cite they provide they provide the cite to the country  port saying how widespread it is now except the country report done such widespread nothing like not like you and i do agree with judge by b there was a pretty dramatic increase in violence against women documented between i think it's two thousand seven and two thousand and thirteen whatever the dates of the reports are less than two thousand two thousand and two thousand and thirteen or fourteen right yes yeah i mean but even in that incident even in that short span there was a fairly dramatic increase documented between those two reports it's not this not like it should stay the same well you know i think the difficulty is conditioning to provide cites to record evidence to say she provided the reports and i'm saying i look at the report from the original hearing and i look at the report on the motion to reopen and there's a huge difference a huge increase just even in that short time frame and where is the site by petition or what the motion reopen fails to do is what was the that the that then is the original state department country conditions where the petitioners discussion of the van what we need is i just told you it's the original report that was submitted on the first go around that's the of then and this is the now the most the country conditions report they submitted with the motion reopen we compare those two and i'm just listening for a response from you i read that as a very dramatic increase between time one and time two are you saying there's no increase while the difficult the honors petitioner hasn't given me a cite which i can respond you didn't read the report petitioner has the burden of proof or persuasion to gain the reports where she gave the real yes you touch it to the motion to reopen right the prior report your honor again we need a we need a we have them we need and they have the size of the nile but what does change require who it just maybe we're not communicating don't we have the original state department or not the original but the whatever it was two thousand and nine he said in the prior silent tell me where the changes from i need is i just say no you can't read the reports and do the comparison like like we have tried to do will condition of the burden of proof or persuasion i can't respond to some an argument the petitioners never made and what do what do the country for saying well in the twenty two we file well the point they cite in their brief that rape and violence was widespread they say that and that's what they quote from the country report so the extent i can respond to it because the only report you know that th between then and the now again the difficulty is your honor petition would like to tell me where that is i can respond i mean i could tell you where it is if i becomes like taking the dime didn't you provide us with a twenty eight day letter with a comparison of these reports i did i so i know exactly where they letter from the son and the brother who still remains in el salvador why isn't that reflect that there's more i take from this excerpt by the way and it's pretty tours but they just that part of it they say evidence of gang violence and police corruption doesn't demonstrate that the respondents have fears that differ from the populace as a whole and presumably it doesn't differ from the populace as a whole anymore than it did before and so that there's not a change in circumstance they don't  tly say that but that's the inference but before that they talk about this letter from the sun in the brother who are still there wasn't there further persecution in that respect that is related to this particular practitioner that has been at it for ya see my time's up and they're actually a little bit longer than an answer but it's two parts i'll try to give it briefly as possible first of all what is the particular social group they've alleged young salvadoran women actually say gangs are targeting me well this is the other sort of issue of all that side is evidence of the house was burned down previously it was burned down previously the prior hearing they could have again we're not  answer to judge rogers question is the issue that petitioner hasn't raised doesn't really address which is the tina discourse decisions that you know about nexus petition or you know fear of gangs is unfortunate because in the population in el salvador and while we have and when we have a family that has been previously targeted and left and we have a member of the family who has returned and continues to believe that he is that he was a target and that he's in hiding and doesn't had a whole three months to figure that out that's that was congress decision your honor that was an executive branch is the solution congress fallen so you know because the supreme court's decision abou two and already that was one it was purely a regulatory thing that was ninety days then in one thousand nine hundred six clinton president clinton signed and said ninety days that's a statutory requirement this is not something that's being arbitrary created by the executive this was congress and the supreme court's recognize that in may of two thousand and fourteen more than double from that time the last year fifty six percent like for that year two thousand and fourteen from the beginning of the year to the time of the report read is a weapon to terrorize how that's relevant when you're talking about change country conditions because you're talking about changing a condition that because it's across this i take from that it's kind of opaque reasoning but if you keep parsing it it starts to make more sense the the idea in the in the decision it appears to be that when you're talking about an increase in something which isn't which by itself is not enough it's not a change it's not a material change country condition so if you increase the murder rate and across the board and across the board murder rates are not enough then an increase of something which categorically is not enough is not a change country condition that seems to be what they're saying i agree with you it's not as clear is that they might have been but what's wrong with that argument if that's their argument and doesn't seem to be answered by saying oh but they really went on the whole idea is the thing that went up it categor not enough but the more and the more pertinent information is the fact that sexual violence is normalizing accepted by the community that was a finding made by catholic charities it's an everyday part of life for schoolgirls that was list does petitioners case they refused to undergo that new normal that new practice and pattern that the gangs are inflicting to increase terror in their communities so society now recognizes and again page seventy eight of the brief it lists all of these new conditions and how society is now viewing in coming to grips with how especially their young girls are being objectified and considered to be property not just that there there is a risk of harm like the rest of the community maybe but they in particular are viewed as property and the gangs can do anything they want with them and there is nothing that society is going to do in order to rescue them or them or have any power to change what's what's your response to the government's point that to the extent that you provided the the letter from from henry about about the fears that he has that you were limited to seeking reopening within within ninety days what was started in understand well the government the government said that you could have reopened within ninety days of the prior decision as to form new evidence about the targeting of this family so the evidence of about henry being in hiding and fearing for his life and and so on is not relevant to the claim that you're making on reopening it is relevant as far as it goes towards the danger they would encounter it perhaps may not be relevant as as far  within the ninety day deadline but the broader picture is how society now views this particular social group so guys that then henry's daughter is irrelevant to that because he's because he's male henry henry indicates that he still feels in danger which indicates that the family is still in danger yes right the government's point was that if you were going to argue make that argument that's not really a change country condition and you should have argued should you had ninety days under come congress rules to you all right the drama lopez versus sessions is submitted thank you counsel