outright grant of relief that i will address next as well founded fear for withholding under the act started the convention against torture illegal holder says that when the facts and law are fully developed and the substantial evidence in the record the substantial compelling evidence in the record that consistently said that despite these laws corruption and if indeed we are still huge problems when it comes to domestic violence in guatemala in our case country evidence in this are not as positive there also needs to be corresponding evidence about significant reductions in corruption or violence and that's simply not the case here despite national laws being passed the department of state report found that violence against women remains a serious problem that impunity for perpetrators remains very high and that police often fail to respond to requests for assistance related to domestic violence as a or three hundred and ninety dollars to ninety one it's a combination of widespread corruption and pervasive massaging in guatemala that play a key role in the ongoing violence against women for instance the record shows that fifty three nine percent of guatemalans think that domestic understand that police won't protect them from violence because police share in the racist and sexist views that indigenous women belong to the lowest class of citizens they believe that family violence is not a serious matter worthy of law enforcement investigations and they're widely known to be corrupt and susceptible to bribes that's an r two hundred and seventeen dollars the board downplayed all of this evidence citing national reforms but that approach result in regards to the cat claim the board does have to consider all of the evidence and the ability to relocate is one of the factors that has to be considered but it's not dispositive busy and the core is able to look at the substantial evidence because there is no   act finding required here the evidence is already there the record in the court can and should go ahead and look at all the factors months substantial evidence findings to determine that there is no possibility of internal relocations case and trying to all of the evidence is considered as cat requires this record compels that one conclusion that she was not able to relocate within the country and that her husband is still looking for her and with the intent to torture or kill her  case for husband beat and raped her for years he stabbed her with a knife he threatened her life at gunpoint and when she was eight months pregnant he tied her to a post and be her stomach to forcibly kill her unborn child that's a r or two hundred and sixty five to sixty seven there's been no nexus finding here but went down this argument is that the board didn't use the magic words on account of her because and the board did specifically find that as to must one suffer harm rising to the level of persecution at the hands of her abusive husband and a r three and that together with an assumed social group defined by her inability to leave her domestic relationship when said husband leaves no doubt that her membership in that group was at least a reason for the harm she suffered and under brostrom narrow a reason is determination that there is no there probability future harm because for all the reasons i explained in cat the simple passage of time here is insufficient and actually record requires or compels a finding that she is not good afternoon your honor stuart on a dimaggio on behalf of the attorney general we have please the court your honor when it is necessary here because the scope of this court's review is limited to here to an incomplete for discussion includes a gap which can only be felt by the agency and prevents the court from even beginning its analysis with respect to the withholding of removal claims without a next determination without an on able or unwilling determination to add to the finding of assumed membership in a particular social group the board's affirmed of the immigration judge is clear probability findings standing alone of those here does not explain whether the presumption of future persecution was triggered and relatedly does not explain which party for the burden of proof to begin with therefore under hello i'm going dollars versus thomas and ventura remember it is necessary for the agency to exercise its decision making authority in the st instance to we can't assume that your honor because to make out assumption one of two things one of how to have and one of the agency what about to make that assumption and one in turn the court could rely on it or two the agency would have had to meet the requisite underlying findings that would then trigger the presumption of a matter of law in this instance we do not have any of the requisite findings that would be required other than this one assumption that some last one was a member of our particular social group but notably lacking from that we had we don't have a determination as to nexus we don't have a determination are still unable or unwilling and those two issues combined with membership in the particular social group collectively are what's necessary to establish past persecution in the term of our sense meaning past persecution consisting of harm rising to the level of persecution inflicted by the government or private individual the government is unable or unwilling to control and we don't have that here we simply had a board you know being as with the direction to the immigration judge you know the past harm should be treated as to the level of persecution and the instructions to proceed from there with the analysis including us the nexus unable or unwilling and so on and so forth and so for that reason your honor the court cannot just assume that the burden was on you know partly for that matter because we don't have that assumption from the agency nor do we have the necessary underpinnings in terms of the legal determination that would be necessary  conclude as a matter of law of the presumption was triggered without the burden would have fallen to one party or the other and for that reason the because these are these these decisions that have  through to the board decision that the they're not there when the court cannot make it in the st instance we may never be required for the agency to clarify efficient and allow for adequate view your honour's if you don't have any other questions there's no possibility here for the court to grant kept the board only address stuck with us and forgive me because i can't see you i don't know which one of your honors pointed out the we don't have a finding from the board or asked whether we have a funny from the board on internal relocation we don't the board simply addressed acquiescent and i paid for its explicit that when the when the board affirms the immigration judges denial of the ca ultimately definitively with the withholding of them will claim for example if they just see what a grant withholding of a mobile that would move a cat clinton nor do we know what direction the agency will go specifically as to the unable or unwilling to termination which to be sure is a separate and distinct legal standard but the underlying factual underpinnings of of those determinations do overlap with the acquiescence determination  theoretically a civil matter the court could address it again it's a matter of prudence the government recommends remaining here in light of the gaps the particular gaps here with respect to the withholding o credibility slash reliability and again the government doesn't take any position on the confines of the just as a matter of observation of what's on the record for the immigration judge found words said what what do you want to do with it that's what i understand what you say i don't want you to do anything with that i want you to send it back just as not please i want you to sign the back but i'm just observing for the government doesn't take a position on the merits and i'm just pointing out the status of functionally of the of the case the posture of these cases based on the agency decisions before the court i do see them out of time unless the court has any other questions and turning out to his claim that it is inappropriate to rule on cat in this setting st as i think judge murphy correctly pointed out the issues that are problematic with withholding decision don't analysis at all the issues of nexis in particular social group are relevant to a cat analysis and again the government has consistently argued that there's no need for additional fact finding here in their brief for instance that it's two of their brief is based on the on the record that just so i'm reluctant to interrupt your rebuttal but your so i absolutely make sure i understand your argument your argument is that we can decide the cat question without arguments this case will be submitted