please the court but since after the petitioner's present case involves the denial of three applications asylum withholding of removal under the immigration and nationality act withholding the remove one of the convention against torture will begin with the st two eligible for asylum and withholding of removal on the basis of past persecution and for future persecution as to past persecution petitioners returned to the united states in june of two thousand and fifteen from mexico occurred because mr hernandez was going to the police in the united states petitioners and mr nando's had reported threatening messages to law enforcement that they received from sergio's girlfriend on sergio's behalf following our emails report that she had been sexually abused by sergio titian has also received a threatening phone call in mexico indicating that ms composer should be careful with their children because children can go missing in turn up without organs these incidents arise to the level of persecution threats of an immediate menacing nature are sufficient and there's little that's more menacing and immediate and having a gun pointed at your head this persecution occurred on account of fo particular social groups the petitioners proposed the immigration judge and the board immigration appeals did not address whether these are cognisable groups but rather focused on nexus counsel can i ask you to skip ahead and talk about the future persecution aspect short pointing guns at their head the persecutors already found them once in mexico and this poses father continue to receive calls for after they've left him but they weren't threatening calls right i'm not sure that's in the record i don't think it was just a i thought it was the record was was that they asked for her and then but hang up right that's that's what i'm understanding as well and they anticipate the same or worse upon returning in the country conditions evidence that was submitted shows considerable crime impunity and low grades prosecution relatives did not receive threats in mexico and four because case law provides a vague and speculative testimonies and selfish as to the st reason here while petitioners have not heard from anyone since returning united states that's exactly why they returned after they returned here hoping in thinking that this would ovoid the problem and threats that they were receiving in mexico and that worked that's why did they go back because that's when she was stopped coming into the red all right so they returned to mexico at some point after this i think they might have been stopped at the border and given a voluntary return they tried to come back in i'm not sure there's multiple entries by ms pump oh so in the timeline of events says they received some threats here in the united states they left because they thought things would be better for them in mexico it was not in the kidnapping incident occurred and they decided they needed to come back to the united states and i'm not sure of the top of my head what happened at the border there but that's that that was the point  persecution and mexico given what did her they were threatened at gunpoint after recanting allegations that the nephew left mexico that right that the nephew is now in the united states i'm not sure the nephew was ever in mexico my children and rd and th this one post as father did receive calls after petitioner if i like but you said you don't know whether these were threatening calls or not we do know that people are calling asking then presumably on them and their disgusting crime impunity and low rates prosecution are found throughout mexico they were they were already tracked down once there when they went to law enforcement law enforcement said give us some money and will help you out this this isn't a filing fee they were asking for th is evidence of the corruption and unwillingness of the law enforcement council is the children's father here lawfully you know so he's not able to try to pursue any kind of belief for the children to the internal relocation are being able to avoid persecution in mexico this is a nephew we're talking about we're talking about a family member and as miss composer testified she believes because of that connection she said that this person is going to be able to find in mexico as that he did incorrect again this proposal to go to law enforcement they did not help they asked her for money and that the country condition evidence they submitted indicates this isn't really something that might be surprising or old one wouldn't expect a corruption i punity and again low rates of prosecution are found throughout the country someone's going to kill them or kidnap them in mexico and i think that means that standard what about the complicity of the government i mean i recognize that the policeman that she encountered asked for bribes but you need to show more than that for purposes of cat relief well sure they do they went to law enforcement they asked for help they did ask for bribes and you know our argument here is that because they are aware of what's going on and they're refusing to do anything unless they're getting their also concluded that petitioners did not qualify for withholding of removal are the convention against torture because evidence of generalized violence is not sufficient to make the question while i agree with that statement of war that's not all we have here we also have evidence about what they've already experienced in mexico and also what they anticipated future and there really isn't too much more anyone can present besides evidence of country conditions what's happened to them in their past and what's going to happen in the future and why they think that's going to happen taylor looking to see whether i should say good morning or good afternoon so good afternoon your honor counsel my name is margaret cine tailor i represent the government in this matter i had anticipated beginning with a legal argument but i think i need to clarify a few facts st so the harm that occurred here occurred both in the united states and in mexico and the threat  moved in a little girl in the family was acting strangely at school and it turned out that she may have been sexually abused and they went to the police and after they went to the police  text there was a threat that this person was the girlfriend of of the nephew who could have sexually abused the child and you can see there's a lot of problems in this family and and they said we're going to i'm going to harm you either in the u s and if you go back to mexico i'm going to harm you there so she threatened harm both in the united states and shelter and then they left the u s and went to mexico and in mexico there were there was an impersonal threat and there were further threats at the same time the domestic partner that remained in the using a gun i mean that that's not that's a pretty significant right i mean it's very troubling so tell me why you think that fall short of persecution well it's very troubling but it's consistent with was a two week detention confinement in a small cell in adequate food inadequate toilet a threat of a home bombing gunshots in the yard mass shoulder masked soldiers in the yard a stolen than an interrogation and agency said that didn't rise to the level of persecution and that's a lot worse than tha than this other threat that was never executed and i take your point very frightening but but it's consistent with this court significant that there were threats received both in the united states and mexico it is significant because if you're seeking safe haven in the same country where you've been threatened it just  doesn't make much sense but what about the argument that they can rely on protection from american law enforcement and they can't get money for sats that's an excellent question because  they also thought protection in the united states from the police and did did not ever get it so the st time when that when they went with the little girl  the little girl ended up recounting and so the police didn't help didn't didn't pursue it further the nd time missed composite when she received tax she went to the police again the police told her that she would have to wait for a subsequent tax that they couldn't investigate based on the text she says she gave them and their when she left the country getting protection in the u s either now granted there there was no incident in the u s that had a threat with a gun water take some kind of your drug about the legal issue here in order to to demonstrate asylum in addition to just showing that you've been harmed you have to show that you were harmed on account of a fight five grounds and the ground that is is important in this case is particular social group and so to say that you that something horrible has happened and that you belong to a group isn't enough you have to show that there is a link there he said that a family can be a particular social group well st of all this well that is such a provocative question because because the social groups here are not pure family the social groups that are identified are individuals who are reported crime or familial abuse or family members of individuals and the other two social groups really don't work at all but it's a provocative question because about ten days ago the attorney general issued a decision and matter of ellie a day where he decided that family groups are usually not particular social groups so that brings into into question just what level of deference but we know that well under brand x possibly a lot but i don't think it really matters in this case anyway because because the case was not decided on on the cognized ability of the social group the case was decided on the question of nexus whether there was this connection in this case  immigration judge and the board assumed cognize ability and said there's just no connection and what what the decisions say is that all of this harm that happened wasn't because of the particular social groups that are identified but because of the family dysfunction because of the intro family disputes that that are in this family there are multiple infidelities there's the sexual abuse problem there's anger management problem and and it was really in pursuit of those problems that this ultimate threat in mexico took place i see i don't have one minute left so i would like to just say a couple of things quickly a one is if the court happens to disagree with the government on the nexus question which is the question in this case then we would ask that you remain and four for the board and the immigration judge to decide  social group cognize ability so what you think that is the question you don't think it's whether this rises so level of persecution or whether there's an adequate threat i think that that the that is obviously a question also but i think it's clear cut under this court's jurisprudence that that a different result is not compelled past there is a past persecution question it's just that that it's easily resolved it using this jurisprudence that this that of course these these are very troubling things that happened you know in our society and throughout the world but the question is does it rise to the level of persecution and under the jurisprudence both both the administrative jurisprudence and this court's jurisprudence of what happened here as horrific as it is is not persecution and certainly not torture so that's that legal question and what's left which may be a little bit more difficult to decide is is the nexus question  government is right it did occur both in the united states and in mexico the threats it was worse in mexico that's why they came back here also presumably they would be able to seek police protection i can't member the name of this case but i think it's mentioned in the briefs where this case this court gives an example of what would be sufficiently menacing or immediate to be a threat and constitute persecution i think the example the court gives is it is pointing a gun point the trigger while on the no it's to the victim that it's loaded i believe that's mentioned in the previous additionally being able to manage imagine worse persecution than someone experienced is not a reasoned basis to deny a pplication for asylum as to the particular social group i'm glad only i was brought up that case has as its foundation the agency's particularity and social distinction acquirements this court hasn't had an opportunity to look at the agency's most recent decisions addressing those requirements but in the past this court has disapproved of those requirements and is accorded no deference to those requirements i believe and that's it for today so we are and re