hold that existence of a particular social group has been established in this case and to remain in this case of me so that it can consider the claim that ignored the first time around which is the claim based on persecution by the stepfather what do you think that means it's a legal basis of this court can bring to bear all the traditional tools of statutory construction with appropriate deference to an agency interpretation that is not foreclosed on the language of the statute or of the reasonable under the statute we're not talking about aqua visibility we're talking about perception within the society and what's what's wrong with that given that we have to look at this and  indicated that that was the case but when we took a look at that it looked to me like the v a didn't necessarily hold the members of the national police force about songs that would constitute a group that there was  that was something that god maybe overstated a little bit in the seventh circuit precedent and then picked up by a horse was it in fact the case in point is what you're saying m true that we're dealing with this particular social group how could we really say that it required another particulary it's inconsistent with the statute that that's not a reasonable interpretation once you agree that there needs social his ability was inconsistent with past decisions because there was no requirement under a cast that these groups have a characteristic that was outwardly recognizable and he backing on that score average act with the idea that the term social visibility didn't require on site visibility because that word visibility literally meant something that you can see outwardly not an internal tree this court also had trouble discerning the difference between  defined in different ways and if we have that term in a particular group we might not know exactly who's going to be a member because different people think of those terms in different ways so that's what particularity refers to in terms of discre and if there is complete overlap if what we're really talking about is that it is in particular social group why isn't bad already in here in the musical characteristic i do or any case off the top of my head example i guess the first thing that occurs to me and i have to sort of question i wasn't talking would be something with the term wealth in it where if a group i tried to float off the top of my head that had that were in the name that it would be too difficult to tell who exactly would be a member because different people think of wealth in different ways depending on for example maybe how they grew up there with the tears what their situation currently is but it doesn't necessarily need that gee that it's more it is more than just having this common in iraq characteristic it's common to be more characteristic that separates different factions in whatever society the person came from so i mean i don't think it's a problem  leave a domestic relationship i really think it makes sense that you look at how society has you know whether they perceive these individuals as set apart and by that we can determine who is a member it's very easy with that definition to determine who is a member doesn't faulkner suggest that that's that's an inconsistent decision that's not consistent with your own past what's your response on my response is i disagree with that  exactly what one would think it looked at it looked at its boundaries to see whether they were vague and subjective or whether we could determine who's a member of the crew whether being a married woman in that country unable to leave her relationship we're really emphasizing is that we really get the perception of society and one point with regard to that it will hold when you say the perceptions of society on on what basis on one on one factual basis this would make a determination that if you're in guatemala and your relationship is a white somebody who's up there in society recognize me know what i'm on society recognizes that but you you go across the border  what's perceived in that society what the poor rely on to say it is consistent for us to recognize and they are see women who are abused as existing social groups recognized by that society but gneisenau particular social group they're essentially arguing that all mothers fathers sisters and brothers what seems like an enormous majority of hungering women are part of this group that there's a setting for which completely cuts against what social that you cannot at all rule that the perception of first you know and that's actually the board never said the board said you cannot look only at the perception of the prosecutor but what we're looking at is whether a group can be in the identified whether it was a group bed you can conceptualize in a way that is i can be separated from the rest of society and we know that immediate family members can flip that category and we know that women who were abused  domestic relationships they can't leave should that category when you put those two together why isn't even more precise and distinct than either of those two standing on my visa tracking argument to say that you know we've found in other cases that is is all see the paint stuff because they're concerned if the group gets too big that because there are actually distinctions and fine distinctions that can be made it's just a kind of a gut feeling that oh my gosh if we  say that we've made everybody in honduras a refugee well i don't think that's i don't think that's what the board's decision i mean john at all you know if you have a group that is marge and there is i can't think of an example of the top of my head i it beforehand but isn't sure nearly large and it is still seeing the individuals who have this characteristic if there's evidence that they are seen as something as a group set apart from individuals who don't then it would be a different of that protected characteristic the severity of it the government's willingness to allow it to proceed relocation question so why isn't the question of the p s g level that very important to keep the issue of whether somebody is a member completely separate from the issue of whether the person was harmed your fears harmonic out of membership in that group and the poor pointed out you know  a particular social group in the context of where it is in the statute which is next to these other four protected grounds and the board there's a very good job in the g and we've e g explaining that particular social group doesn't just different factions and determining whether someone even can set forth in enumerated ground and then you move on to either the person fears harm or was harmed on account of that and these are all very important questions and you are doing it past persecution you have to show that the harm rises to the level of persecution that the government's unwilling unable to protect the individual and the nexus but we still have to know what rises to the level of persecution we can just move forward to the other questions but in terms of the evidence of that the good itself is looking to the same types of evidence that looks for us if the category is homosexuals in cuba and the way they are defined is socially distinct is to see that they are persecuted that they're register make i don't exactly agree with that because in that case the individuals that the applicant feared was at the hands of the government and so but the but we didn't just look at how the government persecutor treated that applicant the board also looked at what you pointed out how society treated the applicant and that's also played into whether the group was socially distinct and that plays into why you can't just look at the persecutors perspective and why well they say you provide no evidence of out there they're making a burden of proof or argument if you want to say she fits within a particular church group it's on you to demonstrate that in fact you know i do and society numbers of the families burden to bear your factual burden to bear it's not satisfied by saying something abstract like in the past you recognized kinship and in the past you recognize domestic violence and therefore you can put those things together that's like a mathematical equation utterly abstract i understand them to be saying there is a factual question about hardware in society and no evidence was a deuced odd that what's wrong with that argument  socially distinct and for the reasons socially distinct and recognize right correct ok i've never understood the argument to be that family wasn't recognize i understood your argument to be that you didn't do anything to demonstrate that hundreds side recognizes family members not the person abuse not the spouse or so on but but members of i take the government's argument to be that they are entitled to define refugees according to particular social groups and that their definition of particular social group under their precedent means you have to have demonstrated that the society in which this whoop is alleged to exist is one that the society itself recognizes so feel like they can't get out because that's the group you're alleging then you have to ledge they say that one hundred society would have to perceive that to be a group now stepping away from all your arguments about that conflates this or that are these are the correct it is thier if their test is a valid one that it is what the society recognizes that is factually important yes that