is all about is over the course of their nearly twenty year relationship the petitioner was the victim of constant and horrific abuse perpetrated by her former partner in a high ranking and that's thirteen gang member makiya despite her doctor's numerous arrests and imprisonments the abuse persecution and torture against the petitioner continued unabated and in fact escalated in worsened over time here the agency found that she was unable to or that she did not demonstrate a lack of state protection she did not demonstrate that she was persecuted on account of a protected ground those findings were contrary to the facts contrary to the law and contrary to this court's binding precedent accordingly as far as the relieved that we're sitting today we would respectfully request that this court remands of the b i a with instructions to grant asylum or alternatively we would request that this court find that el salvador is an able to protect the petitioner and that she was persecuted on account of her membership in the assuming that we were persuaded by your argument that there is not well there was an air of wa are in havoc with evidence supporting what the to remain and as you said with directions on the issues of nexus and cognizable social group or if those issues weren't reached by the v a would  board did not didn't decide those issues but but again we've argued that those issues were preserved for for this court to to address as such because the board court were to allow the board to ignore those issues even though they were raised before them in the in raise before this court it would it would essentially be allowing them to continue that in the future and again but still should we say they should decide those hard well your honor the relief that we're requesting is that because it is i stated it's our position that those issues were preserved before this court that this court is able to address those arguments alternatively if this court were to find that it is not able to address those arguments then we would respectfully request that this court precedent by failing to recognize women in el salvador as a cognizable particular social group and by failing to find that the mission or was persecuted on account of her membership in their group with regards to my st arguments the ared as a matter of law by missing the distinction in their state protection analysis between us between the outside in order government's willingness and ability to protect the petition inability is not to establish a lack of state protection the purpose of international refugee an aside leave law is to provide affective protections individuals whose countries are unable to provide them with protection from persecution on account of a protected ground federal courts and this courts have embraced that ideal in consistently held that a state must be able to provide its citizens with affective protection  b which is incompatible with the statutory standard again as i stated that the statutory standard requires only a showing requires a showing of unwillingness or inability by a country to protect them those two standards are incompatible and irreconcilable accordingly i would request that this court's not imply the a v standard or alternatively and none with other circuit courts that have addressed the issue find that the matter injunction on appeal in that case that the government argued that the two standards the statutory standard and that the heightened standard in a b are interchangeable however the d c circuit court a strongly disagreed with those arguments and viciously abuse the petitioner early in the relationship hector locked the petitioner in her daughter or he imprison them against their will in a dairy which caused the petitioner to become ill hector was then arrested an imprisoned for that offense and subsequently released he then a brutally attacked the petitioner friend of hers with a broken bottle slashing the petitioner's friend in the  arm disabling her and stabbing the petitioner in the back with a broken bottle on another occasion over the course of their relationship he attacked her with a machete he broke her arm with a brick after the bottle incidents he was arrested in prison and subsequently released again after he was released that in and that circumstance he again attacked the petitioner with a gun pistol whipped her rape her put proceeded to viciously attack her father at ten attempted to rape her daughter and when the petitioner intervened hector's stabbed her in the back for a nd time with a knife and he was subsequently said they continue to threaten her with death and she only nearly skipped one attack she then went to el salvador with a friend of hers her friend was and brutally murdered when the and that's thirteen found out that they were going to  her with death over the phone and after he was released from prison while she was in the us hector continued to inquire about the petitioners whereabouts with her contacts in el salvador this enders if they were able to provide her with protection with effective protection the abuse persecution porcher against her would would have stopped or at least been mitigated that that was clear clearly not the case lastly we would argue that the cia and the agency erred in acted in contravention of this court's binding precedent by by failing to find that the petitioners proposed social group of women in el salvador was a cognizable particular social group and that she was persecuted on account of her membership in that group this court has consistently held that nationality race has me that the gender of a certain nationality can establish a particular social group for example in production of a holder this court held that that all they'd they did not address that issue in their decision but again it's it's our position that they aired the committed legal error by doing so in the be preserved  minutes but i'm going to give you an extra two minutes for rebuttal and here you want to plan your time yes i'll proceed to ms morgan and ms morgan will give you s attorney general the courts should deny him the petition for review because essential evidence supports the agency's determination that the petitioner did not meet her burden of showing that el salvador is unable or unwilling to control either hector or other and this thirteen gang members of the agency relied on the fact that the police always promptly responded to the petitioners complaints of abuse there was arrested and prosecuted convicted and received sentences that were not to minimize but in fact were quite significant well his last imprisonment was a sentence of fifteen years for which the decision or heard he serves seven in addition the el salvadoran police were able to investigate arrest prosecute and convict the gang members who apparently were the same folks who threatened to shoot her and then went and unfortunately killed her she didn't show that the government was unwilling or unable to protect her from her him they certainly did show but they weren't on willing to protect or because they kept pulling tractor back in jail or taking other actions against them so they showed some willingness but i don't see evidence of they showed they were able to protect her and what bothered me only was that i thought she had argued specifically the gang leaders  eighteen when they were incarcerated could still take verse actions against people by calling out of prison with their cell phones and other gang members off bruce and that in fact that happened to her and she'd been targeted for a hit while he was them in prison if the government did not if the address that issue should be a decision only i'd say it is adequate because the agency determined that she didn't meet her burden to show either unwillingness or inability and again murders from a prison so o respect player honor when hector was in prison and the petitioner was not harmed physically by him during that period of time so she was one hundred percent affectively protected from him while he was in prison which definitely shows the government's ability to control and protect her with regard to the  can't be right i mean if his friends attacked her on his behalf doesn't that count as not protecting her from him at any relevance that there's no evidence that she reported to the police that she was receiving threats from the gang while he was in prison it might make a difference if she had reported to them i'm getting phone calls the gang members are after me i think hector is directing them to harm me but there's no evidence in the record that that's the case if they go if the salvadoran government had been aware and failed to act i think that's a different question but there's no evidence here that they were aware that perhaps illicit cell phones were being use police at the knowledge that her group was in prison and was in foreseeing violence outside of the prison and they arrested and convicted those members who him i'm not sure what they know other than the gang members came after everyone and then the government came after the gang members i don't know specifically that they knew that threats were made against the dicti that that evidence just isn't in the record to show that connection smorgon they the drug immigration judge brown of the petitioners expert credible  true yes that's true and did the expert testify about the inability of the sound or government to control activity from within the person he did offer testimony on that point yes and not if you've got a credible witness how does the b r a just his knowledge of conditions overall he also said that in some instances women are able to find affective protection through the use of the salvadoran of the arties and under some circumstances el salvador is able to control gang members and we have here not just general can come out and conditions but we have the jurors own very specific testimony about what happened where the police did in fact take action against hector and imprison him and did in fact take action against fellow gang members who murdered someone into action against them so it's not that the  expert was not believed about his evidence generally about el salvador it was that there's sort of conflicting specific evidence about what happened petitioner in this case and the fisher was also found language they didn't specifically use condoned or complete helplessness neither did the i j a i don't think it makes a difference and i don't think it's an issue that the court needs to reach the mentos not just  unable and unwilling is the proper test whether it means the same thing is completely helplessness and condoned is a separate issue that the board didn't reach here and i think the court need not reach here either so if we think that complete helplessness is not the thing as on a ball why shouldn't we be worried about whether the board really was applying that standard given that cited a v i just think from the evidence in the case it's very plain that that the government wasn't completely helpless because it consistently took action circuit courts that have to agree with the government that the standards are in fact saying i think there's a decision of this court on published with a footnote that also says a b doesn't alter the standard so i don't i don't think that's something that the court made reach here but if it did the government's position is that the standards are not functionally different abridged your that without reaching the question whether a standard applies or is different press yes that's exactly the government's position you know ok thank you you're welcome as as to the particular social group question and other issues that the board didn't reach the board didn't reach those issues because it felt like unable and unwilling was this positive here regardless that the court can in the st instance reach those issues as petitioner seemed to him might might be appropriate feel additional findings on some of the issues that might aluminite the application of of the other issues of the standards on the other issues where is the board supposed to the side those other issues based on just whatever was in the record to it or is there some other principle advocates here with the idea of anything else is more than i would just say that i'm heartbroken about the amount of violence that the petitioner in this case suffered both in her home country and in the united states domestic violence is a terrible problem worldwide it's quite intractable and i'm not sure what effect protection looks like with someone like hector unless that lifetime in prison or whether it's some type of witness protection program which i guess wouldn't be a witness because i'm not sure petitioner was a witness but whether it would be some sort of extra protection and whether we could really require that of other governments  it's an interesting question i know united states isn't particularly relevant here but even in the u s this would be a difficult problem the country conditions report shows that there are restraining orders of a level and the petitioner said she was working with an attorney so hopefully she would be able to again go to the police who had been helpful to her and asked for further assistance there's just no evidence in the record quite the contrary that the police seems willing and able to assist her every time she approached them and if she had these concerns hopefully she would have can go to them she at least fel the police would help her because she continued to go to them will we will ask mister wolf to please give us his rebuttal argument and i've extended the time for two minutes beyond what we and willing and able to protect the petitioner all fail or for the same reasons in present the agency is in the government's incomplete  cherrypicking review of the the facts the facts the undisputed facts clearly show that despite his a multiple imprisonments the abuse against her continued and uninterrupted and escalated over able to provide that titian with a with effective critic is not able to provide the petitioner with with effective protection with regards to addressing the particulars social group  issue on and on appeal again i would ask this court to note that the decision of which was a two thousand and five decision where this court explicitly held that the argument that she urges that the supreme court's ventura decision in fact says that we could not rule on those issues because the board did not address lastly i would just draw that the court's opinion or easily draw the court's attention to the the credible in undisputed expert witness statements which explicitly state that the petitioner would be subject to further persecution torture if not murder if deported to us all the door and also which explicitly state that the arsalan or the government is only able to provide her not only council from oregon but also council from seattle and from washington d c have done a great service for accordingly appreciate your excellent arguments it's a tough case with the intractable problems and we appreciate your help and i'm dressing with the court shall submit