cousins is is missing and the i think the point you raise is important here which is that there's a fair body of evidence in this case that discusses the question of particular social groups this is only what's going to happen to edward and frankly if they return to honduras we argue before the i j a that given what happened to henry fifteen days upon return to honduras he was tortured and killed and the police acquiesced to did nothing to help him or even to move his body from where it was found that's that's the apply beyond that one can't claim you may advocate for remaining for other reasons ok but that reason is not a minor stand your honor but i think that the remain as appropriate for the other matters for frankly similar reasons which conditions and concerning the statements of family members he ignored the b i had to say my obligation never once mentioned henry in either of the b i's opinions and effectively ignored the core of their claim well well there was an average credibility fine i mean when you get to the point of an adverse credibility finding i mean and you know that tends to be a short cut to resolution and once an i j makes an adverse credibility find and we have it least in edwin's case very detailed adverse credibility finding by the i j a followed up by a pretty fair analysis by the b i a franklin's case i and is judgment he points out you know that that's a pretty good substantial evidence that he said he was coming not for flight of the gangs but for a better opportunity and then in the remainder of the crop orating evidence th then that when we man is appropriate i think that also while well let's assume there were inconsistent season and when statements the corroborating evidence helps to explain a lot of it and one of the issues is that the had surrounding context so it was found to be non credible because there were some differences in what he said about who was present at certain meetings that happened ten years ago his cousin brian was his testimony was given diminished weight because even though he seems to have been found consistent that was several years ago how can we now need he wasn't viewed in the context of what franklin said either so you know let me push back sure the i j a decision in franklin's case says quote additionally respondents father aunt and other relatives aside from henry remain in one hundred on armed yes it sounds to me like the i j a his accounted for henry situation as well as  other family members and so coupling that with an adverse credibility finding seems that the i g has done the job that we asked by your i think that's a that's a broad inference to make and i don't think it's from the b i relied on either so so whether there is substantial evidence to say that there was a finding of adverse credibility there's a whole there's at least three things that i could think of that support that i don't think there's much of a leg to stand on so what you really have to rely on it would seem is that the i j a didn't refer to but really didn't actively consider or which didn't show that he considered the statements that were submitted by the family that's correct your honor and we do pedro sula i don't know that anything has happened to them yet however we've been there from the oman and they went to san pedro sula to work and so on and the army was sent into san pedro sula and they've never been hurt in protected social group and it seems that the fact that all of the people who turn down the gang are related seems to be coincidental it seems it whatever injury or harm they're facing it because they're related but because they were all there that one day when the gang or two days d or three days when the game or for them to join in so it strikes me that it could have been it's a coincidence that they're related but really they were just threatened for turning down the game and this was not a determination made by the guy i don't believe and i thought we were going to mistreated it is the decision and i think that it's at this point we shouldn't be affirming for reasons winner for the agency they didn't raise it and therefore they can't avail themselves of it today  defined in the act but a cost from nineteen i guess eighty five or so said that it among other things it's when you involve private actors you still have persecution if there are forces that the government is unwilling or unable d to deal with yes and now in two thousand and eighteen you have the attorney general saying i'm going to say that it's not just unwilling or unable to deal with it it is complete hopelessness it seems to me that's significantly different than unwilling or unable just thinking of let's just take a hypothetical stick to say there's a virus out there and the government isn't unwilling or unable to deal with it it's willing but it's not it's but it's not completely helpless you can do some things it's not really apply also here well you unwilling and the condoning completely helpless language is just another way of being able to establish that standard and the th circuit address the governments were in my example are are able to deal with significant portions of this particular virus they just can't deal with it all because things are slipping out but they're good they're they're willing to do it they just can't control everything but it's not the government's not completely yana and i think that that's why in these cases the board addresses them on a case by case basis there there's never been a board decision that says if x happens and that  you have to look at the facts surrounding each particular case to see where that it won't if you didn't where you don't you don't you you know speaking of the facts of each particular case our job is really hard here because it least in one instance to be i e rather than address kind of your standard list of elements for what you do in i believe it's franklin's case it's is it the be says there is no past persecution it does not say that there was no future persecution it makes no particular social group finding it makes no nexus finding that i can tell correct me if i'm wrong in any one time and then it says aha we've got in ri a b and we win it's a walk off home run we're going to skip to the very end and they don't read in re a b the way that you do in your brief is always just now turn of expression of what we've always done they read it is owed we've got we got something with real bite now and we're going to use it so i mean i asked last time if you want to take in the last case and if you're here but but if you want to make the case everything is fact by fact by fact why don't you take it because say now will make a decision on further future persecution now we'll make a decision on particular social group in now we'll make a decision on analysis made in that case for domestic violence cases your physician today but unwilling or unable is equivalent to completely helpless my consistent is that it is another way of satisfying but unable unwilling which is consistent with the position that the department took in the group's case before the crash into sr and you into when you need for us at least with franklin you need for us to agree with that position at least as to utra persecution right yes but you said you like to do a case by case analysis and look at each case on its own circumstances and decide what it is but you made no determination that the i am in no determination of future persecution on account of or particular social group for your statement to ring true that each case is looked at on its own facts why are we racing to the why not remain to make those decisions what it seems that you're pushing in re saying one thing in your brief that maybe it maybe is just not turn it of expression but we're bound by the record in the record in this case does not treat it as an alternative expression so it seems that you're already backing off from what the attack the applicant and then the immigration judge's decision which is also before this court he cited this court unable or unwilling case law to find that the government was not enabled we wouldn't need to reach the point if t are agreeing to remain and you're already sending the c a t back saying we're going to send this one back and you're withholding claim is you're pushing a straight to injury and you skipped all the steps along the way i could see digging in if you weren't already agreeing to remain and for my reissues on the c a t claim why not just remember whole thing in say you know we have these two brothers respectfully on our when we looked at these cases because of the pursuit posture because of how they were consolidated the government took a position just to ask for the we manned on the cat issue and franklin's case rather than attempt to sever the cases  is supported by the record there is evidence that the government is able and willing to protect michael and well the definition there are forces in re and that's and that's and it does we don't know we don't know what explained and that once case statements were properly afforded diminished weight because there was no original one off the table for remain just just i'm not asking maybe maybe my colleagues are asking but i'm not why not why not send it in is the answer just because we win because in reality be because there's complete because there's a showing of complete helplessness the answer is because that a b did not change the standard as the circuit found and gonzales no no no you can't say that because the b i e treated it like a different standard us after the fact and say they didn't change the standard but but but you know we're bound by what they write not not not by what you say say they did and it doesn't and it looks like they change is you know so worthy of backing off so fast but it seems weird because what you want to do is both back off of the b o h rationale so it was it wasn't a strict standard but we still w you might not have the authority at oral argument to make that decision i totally understand that but you think that's the sort of thing that you could maybe supplement and say we've looked at this and we've made our decision because it's already going back and you know it sure would be nice if when the decision comes up to go all in on in re a b if that's what you want to do that there wasn't this ambiguity between our dissonance between with the board good strong version of  take over the process which the treasurer has the right to do but only does it rarely in a b if the attorney general wasn't attempting to change what and well in this case an able to control circuit read matter of a b but it was a point is i can't think of a a human reason the pinion would have been issued if there was an attempt to change something and yet the argument in grace government is saying look we look at what you do like i mean you know some some person's my say that's the philippines for example go ahead just go do it take care but this is it's unable we can't we can't do enough to help you and the question is at what level is we can't do enough to help you is it we can't do anything at all or we can do some things but we just can't do enough to get to your case or d we don't have enough person power etc right that's different than what i see a b saying it's to me a b was a lot of people were taken off just posers comet in the lead up from two thousand and sixty this gives us another thing to make it the standard even more difficult and as i say comment that has been taken out of context and others have now picked up on it but i keep coming back to my point about the virus which in fact we are facing government is both willing and able as we point out in our brief the government the police to take an important functions case and arrested again member of the government was sent to san pedro sula and one stated that he felt safe enough to return after the government was it was a problem that we have here in space and we know what happened to henry he goes back and fifteen days later he said or with a note of it six more to go so it doesn't look some review under the circuit precedent of cow bend it would be helpful to have some instruction to the b i as to what the circuit believes the standard has i do agree with judge amber concerning the line in colina i believe in galena the court ultimately found that  government did not condone the behavior but still granted relief and so if if the if the position of the government here is that the were consolidated before the i j a for a reason and it if there are disparate rulings on the same set of facts of the same brothers one of them sent back one of them is not there should be there should be consistency between the two things i mean i mean strange but standard doesn't require as much but again for the reasons we discussed including the failure to review the full record that would address i think some of those concerns thank