control the you know the game is she used the persecution that's you have to show that in addition to actual persecution own account of a particular social group in addition to those other two items to obtain the presumption in that correct that's correct your honor that's from that ok ok and then sticking on that rd issue two things he referred to the fact that there was no report to the government or to the authorities of this alleged persecution and he  immigration judge referred to evidence in the record that the government was taking measures to address criminal activity and that they were actually arresting and prosecuting gangs now that i fully understand there's other evidence in the record to the contrary and i'm aware of are all but but how is that not something that the statement that the government has put measures this is the quote from the decision the statement the government has put measures in place to address criminal activity and has arrested some gang members doesn't speak to whether they testimony and testimony from his sister and the expert report stating that if you go to the police you make things worse he had a specific instance where a friend of his went to the police after  by the way that the police went to the mother's house with a gang member sort of looking in the back lurking in the background doesn't that cut against   i certainly i think the evidence judge stacker talks about you know i certainly understand how the petitioner would use that to address the issue about whether the government was unwilling or able they were observing and and i'm just trying to figure out while you may have the better end of the argument and i might have if i was they are decided differently how the immigration judge who heard this all  as a whole she failed to look at all of the pieces of evidence here that pointed in the other direction even if you go into the nitty gritty details of the exhibits that she cited some of the pages the one where we have held that death threats constitute persecution when the death threats were not made to the petitioner they were made to someone else number one and number two he was not he or she was not aware of them until after he left the country or there are st of all there any cases where those facts exist that support your position if you could tell me those cases and nd if you could address just even if thats just your argument about how they create persecution in the in those contacts that i don't doubt that they would go to the future the fear of future persecution but i'm trying to see how they go to the issue of past persecution certainly honor and not wear out anything relatives and the court held that that was an incredibly important factor in deciding whether the mistreatment six a level of persecution i do want to draw the court's attention i know the question was about four circuit cases in in something that took place contemporaneous while the petitioner was still in his home country or was that information about harm to a relative that he learned about after he left the country unwilling issue is dispositive of both asylum and withholding and therefore the court need not reach the other grounds and they can and what if i don't agree with you on the issue that the government was unwilling and then able to protect him appeal that there was not substantial evidence of past persecution or you can say and then you know i'm not your honor i think that's why i think what judge stackers asking you to concerned in asking the question i actually think and i don't want to speak for judge what about either but i actually think that both he and i just expressed that we would like to hear the other argument past persecution and i think the court's case law regarding the rap that is probable is relevant in determining whether this harm rises to the level of persecution and whether substantial evidence support the immigration to this conclusion in this case i'd like to point the court to the case the case in which the petitioner was cornered by fifty other people detained for five hours he was only slapped and had his ears pulled but he received direct death threats during that attention by family members and the court found that the agency improperly only focused on the level of harm that the petitioner suffered and i've also looked at the rap oh what a that the fat here that the petitioner was beaten three dollars to four dollars times and at least on the last time said he thought he was going to die  rises to that extreme level and considering that lack of specificity the immigration judge is finding that harm did not rise to the level considered in the didn't as a mother and he both testified that he was beaten and question on that there's some argument the record of the about requiring medical attention what where do you where is there any support for the fact that require medical attention  necessary there's no support for that intense and i our position the government's position is that the immigration judge did not require medical attention but rather saw the lack of medical attention as a fact that was relevant or not necessarily sufficient and showing that the extent of the consumers in greece did not meet a high standard for prosecution this court has a listen it's so so following up on that that that's a question i have to  there's a suggestion that the immigration judge set a standard that medical treatment is required in order to show past persecution and that once again you know th the opinion could be perhaps a little bit more clear or a little bit more robust but is it your position that that's not a legal standard that the judge considered but that the judge weighed on the one hand along with the other facts such as the testimony about him being bruised and having those types of injuries on the other that's exactly our presence and and we grew in that position immigration jit did the petitioner credible and the petitioner did so he felt he was going to die or something to that effect what are we with that does a finding of credibility mean we have to assume that every word was literally correct or that his testimony was overall credible what do we do with those two things because if i'm out think if we were to conclude that the beatings were to the point that he was about to die it be horrid to say that's not severe enough to equal persecution but if it does the funding of credibility mean we have to take that lock stock and barrel with no exceptions or are we or not that's a great question  die on the rd or th being sufficient to establish that he was threatened  that's the question your honor and i hadn't thought about that in that specific thing it again in the court's case of discussing threats it is about what the inch of their lives as long as they don't say they're going to kill you then they can get away with it could i have another question should we take into account the fact that the petitioner was only fourteen years old at the time in terms of a valuating is level of persecution as many of our sister circuits it's certainly your honor it's relevant  dispositive there's no indication in the record or from the immigration judges decision that the immigration judge didn't consider the snares and the cases that it's no sense cited in support of their request that a higher standard be impart to her children are certainly relevant but they discussed petitions that are far younger than the position i was at the time he was harmed and ok what age and what age what age does a minor need to be before their age should be taken into account in these circumstances i'm not r t d is not young enough apparently i have a clean rule your honor at all and i think that would lead to some absurd results of bright line rule is a minor is someone under eighteen ordinarily in the law are you familiar with the united states department of justice guidelines for children and asylums claims not explicitly alright so let me ask you about something that's quoted there and what your response would be to that so the guidelines say persecution suffered as a child is should be defined more liberally then the standard for adults as the harm is often more traumatic personally but at the same time what is really critical in this is that the applicant bears the burden of proof of establishing that he's eligible for this really and then in doing so he needs to provide details about the harm you experience so that the agencies can properly adjudicate his claim and here we just have a dearth of specificity and i would like to remind the court of the standard of review of use cases this is a tough record and i'm not trying to minimize the harm that the suspicion or experience or the harms that salvadoran citizens face in their country but i do wish to remind us that asylum is not a general protection provision to protect against a very specific kind of harm for specific reasons and specific levels of severity and while the record certainly supports two conclusions in this case that's not sufficient for the petitioner to succeed on the court standard  and you're unable and unwilling to response of the government or you meant it looks like you have not challenge or not responded to the challenge the petitioner concerning the nexus of the particular social group so it looks like you've abandoned or not contesting that is that correct discussion on that but yeah it looks like you're not pursuing those here and it looks like also you're not pursuing from your brief the issue of whether if we find that the petitioner stablish sufficiently past persecution that particular social group nexus and the unwilling unable that the government has met its burden o  making sure i know what we're doing  this record is a tough one in that both conclusions the conclusion that the immigration judge came to and the conclusions that the petitioner advocate have support and the record however under the standard of substantial evidence or view that's in their record does not compel the only conclusion that the salvadoran government or a government official would be there actively engaged consent or acquiesce to the torture of the petitioner and if there are no further and  let me let me make sure i'm good on that last issue when one second p that the issues that she discussed concerning were the issues she relies on for the similar issues that you know that that's not stated the be a says a little bit more in talks about all they referenced is belief and not evidence so two questions are we entitled to infer that the district court and the the a rely on the same issues in the cat decision that were just used to this solomon withholding claim is that something we can do was able to an emotion that is not required to make an exit uses on her conclusions and i agree with you that this this decision is especially sparse but nonetheless considering the standard overview and the facts and the record that of the government's taken she definitely never addressed their ability and we have specific evidence from the respondent in testimony credible testimony from him and his sister and the affidavits and letters from his family members as well corroborating the events that occurred to him that show why going to the police in his situation would have been futile that is coupled uncorroborated with the country conditions evidence in the record so this court has been very clear you can't come in and cherry pick the evidence here when the evidence as a whole pushes you in another direction if you go and look at the record evidence you got the salvadoran president correct salvadorian president who is negotiating back door deals with gains in admitting that he has to do this in order to remain in control salvadoran city at the time and the now the country's doing the same thing so i think it's clear here that the country conditions evidence with along with the specific evidence that hernandez credibly testified to pushes us in the unable unwilling and i don't see how the record of this compels anything else but that finding and then turning to the past persecution one this is a fourteen year old boy that this is happening to you can't ignore that fact and there's no way you look at i did his decision she clearly did not take that into consideration she says the only time she ever notice age is that he was eighteen at the time you know that she was issuing the decision that's it at the beginning and then the board tries to do this weird fundamental change insertion into the past persecution analysis i mean both of these which are the legal standards here i mean that's the only reason we're before this court so i think the government the respond in this case is acknowledging that they put your nexus they probably butchered you know and because in here can't you just elaborate on what you call because now he's eighteen that fundamental change comes only in the rebuttal of the presumption that's where he put the standard so you've got to find past persecution st and then we'd say ok did the government establish that it would be reasonable for to him to in turn to relocate or has there been a fundamental change circumstances that affects the protective ground that affects the social group so his age has nothing to do with his social group and in fact you know his mother wrote that she had to flee the house she's been in hiding the sister seeing her money every two weeks her partner's going and getting the money so there's been no fundamental change and even as i wrote before the board in this court a change of four years from eighteen to fourteen doesn't change his fear of persecution so again i think the legal standards of both the that they're not pressing that is she yeah i i am not sure how much that ends up making a difference i mean i'm not it to the extent that was utilized as to support past persecution i would agree with you that that doesn't make a lot of sense to the extent it's related to the rebuttal issue and that's been abandoned i'm not sure whether we need to deal with it but here's what i'd like to go back and in ask your question really about the age issue because i certainly agree that neither the j nor the b i a articulated manifest contrary to the law is the failure to specifically address that such a manifest failure when even though some of our sister circuits may have adopted it we have not and and the court doesn't you know essentially comment on the issue at all well i would say that one persecution is a cumulative standard rates we have to look at everything so age is going to be one of those factors and then beyond that i would say that we are talking about facts that are not in dispute these beatings are not in dispute you know anything his age at the time is not in dispute so we're talking about a pure legal standard so we're talking about the legal standard for persecution that is something that this court addressed to know and regards to the cases that the refund of a sighting yes some of those respondents or those applicants were younger but some of those never suffered the physical harm that our fourteen year old did at the hands of and torrijos game armed with knives and weapons and guns like so so i mean we're not comparing apples to apples here so i i think while we might not be asking for a bright line rule we're asking for what the other circuits have found an age calibration you know we we all can acknowledge that happen to a four year old would affect differently than somebody who's forty you know an event that would happen to a fourteen year old would it would affect somebody differently than who is thirty you know but also you know i take him to the seven circuits position that sixteen you know wouldn't get the same calibration that a nine year old would but it has to be again the subjective and objective perspective of this person what's reasonable for a fourteen year old who's being beaten in this manner to feel and and so can i ask another question that is a follow up to earlier question judge that or i think i asked and i find interesting i don't think we have opinions to this effect but are there decisions out in other words does showing up as a gang with knives and guns constitute a threat of death that would bring us under our law was it is there are there decisions from other circuits that address whether conduct you know can create a threat as opposed to words  that we've cited in our brief discussed conduct that has been found to be persecution in media that sure included death threats knew that did not include actual physical harm to them in this case i would i would put forth that he has suffered a death threat we don't need the that sort of common sense notion christian says death threat to roost as death threats and as you know to have a list continues the same thing but at the same time i think you have to to look at the specific facts of this record in its entirety to to arrive there