decision it said it was incidental or tangential remaining just to apply matter baby won't deal with the problems in the decision before this court now yeah i hear made errors that matter if he just doesn't correct for and i think there are four of those and if i could i'd like to talk about each of them the st one is as i lose you my introduction that the board didn't conduct clear air review of the i just factual findings of next year next is a quintessential factual issue and for the b o h do you clear error view as this court said in its recent decision and other words that every reasonable person would have to find a nexus to political opinion would we even have to reach the questions involved in maybe the other issues pertaining to domestic i think that that would obviate to some degree the need for the courts to talk about a particular social group composed of mexican women right which is one basis for making a claim here but i think also that it is also true that people who are subject to domestic violence may apply for asylum raising a claim that one simple reason for their persecution was a feminist political opinion and so he extends that matter of t v one says answer is we would not have to do if if we were to go that route we would not have to deal with the question of social group analysis and some of the other more convoluted areas  necessarily fail because the reasons for their persecution are going to be on his view essentially personal we think that's wrong and there are a couple other errors that the v a made here one is saying that the reasons the pentagram had to be unrelated to a personal relationship you think that's incorrect for the reasons you gave in our grief you think it's wrong the board seem to think that they need to show that they're persecutors targeted similarly situated people in order to show access so all that we think is incorrect and it's important for this court in re managing to explain that to be i said to be a it doesn't just repeat these errors again because nothing about a matter of eighty two dollars is going to disabuse the v i i of these notions i could reserve the remainder of my time for about oh you made  on the nexus requirement among two other issues he acknowledged that there was a lack of clarity among the circuit courts among decisions regarding the next  errors that are unrelated to a b and particular in what to be i did here to remain in a more nuanced or more complete why a and i opinion we believe that this case if organization appealed decided in both the particular social group nexus and the political opinion nexus based on matter a b indeed if you go to the board's decision the record page thirteen is rejecting the political pinioned it's fake specifically to matter of a b so we would argue that any errors that the board may have committed in making this decision is based on matter baby number one which no longer has a stance is the same as matter of a b two which sets forth in clear language a two part framework for considering the nexus requirement the board nor the immigration judge in this case has the benefit this clear language indeed you go look at the immigration judge's decision contrary to what opposing counsel has said she does not apply this two part test indeed she does not clarification to address the proper approach to recurring issues facing gives her asylum regarding nexus and so what this decision did is lay out clearly  held a political opinion and that she was persecuted because of her actual or and putative political opinion it is that doesn't hurt her in any way except maybe so i'm not sure i understand other than just and that nexus requirement whether it is in the context of a particular social group whether it's in the context of the political pinion this two part test applies and so although i'm not a baby to this two part test is clearly course asking you to send it back to the board to consider it but the board jr the court could offer any sort of additional guidance it wants to provide the board in analyzing this case we're not saying you can't do that but we're asking you to allow the board the st opportunity to address this issue it was an address by the board it was addressed by the immigration judge again it wasn't really articulated until this month by the acting attorney general about the next requirement rather matter they be dealt with whether or not the message violence survivors can constitute a particular social group and they were talking about the parameters of that and so that's a separate distinct issue that sounded issue  case and so the nexus discussion in matter a b two is new and it does go into a great bit of detail and the attorney general again issued this decision with his d s l failing to provide clarity to provide the proper approach for addressing the nexus requirement he acknowledged that there was uncertainty across the country regarding this nexus test and now there isn't and the fact that we now have criteria before you answer i'll ask the court to start the clock running so i think it's fine to to if the court is going to remain to say that the board should look at matter of a b to a matter of a view to just reiterate the old standard and it doesn't speak the specific errors that the b i made in this case and so i think that there is a chance that