who i think we kind of understand the facts here were really talking about are you really want to talk about past persecution or are you talking about the understanding that the b i found she was a not a member of a particular social group correct and she had two social groups yes there is so the fact is that she was not a member of the group not that she was persecuted because she was in that group will you agree with me exactly yes there is and so if we look at that she was not a member of the group how does one who is kidnapped then become subject to domestic violence that it doesn't seem to me that if you're kidnapped you're not in domestic violent domestic relationship you are kidnapped so that there are different types of kidnapping but i would say that this is a type of kidnapping relationship he's well just a minute just minute and when we look at kidnapping as it is it seems as if i would not be in a domestic relationship with be a victim about heine heinous devil that could be a woman in a domestic relationship so sadly many domestic relationships are non consensual and the fact that she did not want to be in this relationship did not mean that she was not in a domestic relationship if you think about fo review here and if we're targeting back kidnapping it seems to me that there is a stanch eleven and sustain the decision that they were not in a domestic relationship because the domestic violence yes we've argued all where so it didn't seem to me you even argued that before the b i yes our argument is that this was a domestic relationship whether or not it was consensual and that's in our grief to the board as well that is misunderstood the circumstances of the kidnapping in time in t construe that as not being a domestic relationship and you know you would you could think about if he had some other criminal motives for example that he was going to hold her grandson or try to have her as a hostage for something about the lack of autonomy or consent for many domestic relationships in honduras and in the record or relates that her mother her  as i looked to be evidence your best your best evidence i guess was this expert claudia a child just say she doesn't suggest a good nap because of blue due to domestic relationship  like i say even if you think i wouldn't say that kidnapping can be separated by the even if there's something about kidnapping that would not rise to the level or would not be part of domestic she's kidnapped i mean it once was kidnapped what the kidnapper calls you doesn't make you all of a sudden something different that's the jest of everybody who's kidnapped and if the  suggested it's my sister all of a sudden becomes my sister upon the issue is that many women in honduras are in non consensual relationships and if they are somehow exempt right that is correct to an extent i think there were periods after that where she wasn't going back he was relentlessly tracking her down and threatening her there was a period in two thousand and fourteen when he and his family manipulated her and their child in common into deciding to move in with the in laws we discussed that in our  absolute evidence about the cycle domestic violence the nature of power and control that abusers use where there is this cycle of leaving and coming back that's part of what we're seeing here she didn't record tell us about the reporting of this series of events to local law enforcement i think that because the board did never reported to local law enforcement well her mother did contact the police to see didn't but her mother did when she was originally kidnaps and  ms concern that immediately once people see her in this domestic relationship with her abuser they related to her as his wife so even her mother and her own relatives referred to her as his wife after she was initially reported as missing so i think that that speaks to the point at the society accepted her as a ina domestic relationship even though lived for twelve years on the arms and with no in person contact with him she then bolland paralegal lived at his mother's house and finally she was in the house with him for seven days and then she left for these reasons she was never in a domestic relationship with him substantial evidence supports boyles terminations at the let's let's move to subjective fear of persecution where does to be addressed whether the those that's correct your honor the board the night her plane back or politi fact the only thing the board did was say that it was all founded on an ability to relocate right that's correct on or that was the base focused on how do i get around rodriguez rivera which says to be i asked to focus on the types of threats about what you need an alien testified and determine whether the individual making relocate without looking at whether there was about the regulation the regulation says an applicant does not have a well founded fear of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution is the difference is there a difference between avoiding persecution and having a well founded fear avoid persecution because some of the some of the cases that judge smith's relying on it is true that they suggest that you know threats whether or not they could carry it out can support well founded fear of persecution but are they persecution in and of themselves well i mean under the regulation of if he if he can avoid persecution then she does not have a well founded the avoided persecution for a twelve year period i'm well that's my question did she avoid persecution because even during that twelve year period she was not being abused she was not being raped as she previously had been  she was still being stalked she was still being found out to me that definitely leads to a perhaps a well founded fear of future persecution but is there any out living her life she went back to school she had job again relationships with two men she was not in hiding during that time except for a period of months in two thousand and three he tried to kill her boyfriend at the time or threatened to kill him correct she's deemed credible but santos is not deemed credible all she testif fundamental is that persecution or is that just a fear of future persecution but it seems to me she had a fear of future persecution would you agree with that or i mean i know the b i a didn't address it but would you agree that she had a fear of free future persecution even during that period i think subjectively she had a persecution but under the regulations she does not have appeared future persecution and she can if she can avoid persecution by relocating by operation of the regulation  a well founded fear persecution to be eligible for asylum the thing that worries me i guess is that you're making up the arguments needed to make i mean at this point they had to establish that she had a subject here or not and that her fear was objectionably reasonable or not and they didn't they didn't ever get to that all they did was say well based on the her and the things that happened to her and what they should do and whether they really can relocate nobody s s the murder of us free nobody says the effort to track them harm or in fact he seemed aware be aware of where she was all the guy nobody looked at those kind of things nobody looked there were threats on the telephone call and the fact they were not carried out doesn't make the money reasonable nobody looks at that and yet they jump to the conclusion she can relocate seems to me we can't give  fact it's relocation determination income earlier discussion about twelve year period the board said she had demonstrated the ability to relocate and it necessarily encompasses its early this earlier discussion and it the board did address the issue of santos's claim that he had murdered jeffrey in a footnote in administrative record for  year period in which she was not harmed and had no in person contact with him and determined that it demonstrated her ability to relocate to avoid future persecution well i guess i'm still kind of grappling with i mean the question of you know did the board address all of these specific examples and taken into account does the board need to address those or does the board just need to find you know one piece of i mean reviewing on substantial evidence don't we just have to say that the conclusion that she could safely relocate honduras is supported by substantial evidence so if any evidence supports the board's conclusion that she could safely relocate is our job to a firm at that point or  or can they be persecution and if the board did not address specific question then do we need to re man for them to to consider that because i mean i think that they clearly our bases for fear of future persecution but why isn't a persecution in and of itself to call someone and say they killed their partner isn't persecution avoided the sexual abuse she avoided the kidnapping but the things that she was subject to in those years that's what i'm trying to drill down on is whether those are examples of persecution or just fear of future vers i think with regard to the threatening phone calls and the board acknowledge that the well know that that was not persecution because the board acknowledged that she was abducted the phone calls during this whole year period so if i if i may respond to the questions about whether the act of bends in the twelve years amounted to persecution i would refer the court to  ts and violence can reach the level of persecution and i think that's very much what's happening here during these years of tracking her down issuing these threats they are they rise to the level of persecution because of what she knows about what he's capable of and she knows that because of this experience before when they were together and i think this speaks to judges smith's question judgements question about  whether we're arguing has persecution even if you set aside those initial three months when he kidnapped her i think we still are doing has persecution because she established membership in a particular social group she she's not in the social group because she was able to escape lives separately from san jose for twelve years return to school and enter into other relationships what case is there that says just because one is continually threatened that she's unable to leave the relation i think that the fact that she  was trying to establish a lady i know i don't want i don't watch her facts is there a case i look for one because i'm now looking at substantial evidence for the  they say she wasn't in the social group they're not worried about the damage or the persecution they're saying even if she were persecuted she wasn't in the social group and here's what they're saying because she was unable to escape lives separately for twelve years returned to school enter another relationship so i look for a case that says just because one is continually threatened when they're able to raise does that mean that there are unable to leave the relationship and i couldn't find one and so therefore if i'm honest central evidence review i'm having a tough time seeing why then she's a member of this particular social group the well i think that unable to leave the relationship if you look at that the government itself has taken the position in matter of l r which was in our record that being unable to leave is not just an analysis of whether you are physically living together it's an analysis of all of the ways that es where they see issue here is the board's failure to engage with critical facts and as you noted this fact of his boasting that he killed her domestic partner the facts of the  based on my questioning i was trying to have the government see why you didn't make it on the vera verve future birds future but on the past persecution when we're looking only at one so sure of whether she's in one of the then i look at their reasoning and that's why i asked the question so that's why i focus on have both kidnapping and i would also focus on the abuse a man she left immediately she thought sought refuge with raster no contact with her in person from december two thousand and fifteen through february through two thousand and seventeen aca about the nature of the time and whether she was basically on able to live a life that would show that her ability to if you're talking about the future looking internal relocation she wouldn't