very similar situation the th circuit recognized that every man is required that's the chen case that we said in our breaks as a th circuit explained in that case an applicant should have an opportunity to respond to a government's critical shift in position critical shift in position but sense the opening briefs it appears there have been a number of court of appeals decisions which have held that matter of a b was not a change it was not a critical shift in position for instance in the th circuit just last month the as reynosa versus bar that court said matter of a b did not announce a bright line rule concerning applications on domestic violence matter of a b did not announce a new rule it merely reiterated the well established principle that a social group must exist independently of the harm assert so if we were to agree with and i think there are four circuits that have passed on this summer only then there would not be a change in of law which would not entitle you applicants immigration judges and the board itself read matter of a r c g for the proposition of victims of domestic violence to qualify for asylum on that basis now it twenty general might believe that as a as apparently he does that matter a particular social group it would seem like the this is going back to at a cause of action in effect that existed in the petition or would have known it existed and that the facts existed at the time the initial petition was filed yet the petitioner chose not to plead in the alternative what would entitle her to in essence a do over here we don't see it as a do over we see it as violence could qualify for asylum and that if that's what happened was an a b change that's standard so it's not we don't view it as adding a new cause of action that previously existed is that our existing cause of action particular social groups asylum on the base of the particular social groups that existed for that i mean nothing has happened in the interim the isn't exist at that time so why would you get to raise a new one then it's true that those facts existed but at the time  that she needed to put it on it would have made sense to require applicants to put on different particular social groups and all the evidence that goes with it yes your honor i have a question for now what is it what is the new or different social group that you would seek to put on your are based on the record so far one of them a potential social group that you could put on for instance this unmarried mothers who own property under us we believe that that matter that that particular social group would meet time between the matter of a b coming out it was six weeks between the matter of a be coming out and the a dismissal of petitioners appeal so there was six weeks in there  how could you show prejudice at this point i think wrong or that trying prejudice at this point would be sort of needlessly speculative we can't know what the evidence will be anymore more importantly we can't know what the immigration judge who is the fact finder and who it who makes credibility determinations and who weigh the evidence we can't know how the immigration judge would have you all of the evidence both in you and the old in light of the new social group and invite of the new standards so we think that in that circumstance the safest course would be to remand as in fact the th circuit didn't chant without requiring any showing of prejudice well in this case there are two foundings well actually three the board d of immigration appeals and the st was that the respondent as a matter of fact had not shown that honduran society in general perceive recognizes hunger and women who are unable to leave their relationships so even if you were able to use that original one there was a fact finding that i don't think that you challenge is that correct that's going to honor but there was no point in challenging that by naming once the board held that as a matter of law under a being such a social group could not be connived level in the st instance the all of the board facts findings were predicated on that previous social group one that is now invalidated under a matter of a b so all of the facts we think should be read the immigration judge should have the opportunity to review all of the facts all in the new in light of the new social group and in light of the standard under a b and we think it's just too speculative at this point to say how the judge would come out in when the judge has all the facts on the standards what would the new social group be as we propose in the briefs one potential social group could be unmarried mothers who own property which under the facts of the case would seem to apply t office called honest now as an answer you want to remain and for that particular social group or want to be designated at a later time yesterday or the fact is we we just haven't had the opportunity to go through the record to figure out what the right social group is in light of the standard said i don't matter baby but that certainly could be a possible social group certainly the government has not been tested that that could be it could i suppose social group under the new standards all right well let's let's assume that you have a due process claim and assume that you want to present either unwed mothers who own property or a particular social group yet to be determined if you did that the b i made two other findings one was that the honduran government was willing or and able to control the abuser in this case and the other was that the petitioner would be able to relocate in honduras tell us how choosing a new social group would affect either of those findings yes here are again it's important to understand  recognise that those findings were made in the context of the previous social group so the evidence may show for instance that's unmarried mothers who own property are particularly vulnerable and under an society that government institutions such as the police particularly also maintaining her property in fact incredibly users claim to her property legal claim to her property is a way in which the abuser could try to continue to persecute her even when he was in el salvador as occasionally was the case so again it's a situation where all of these facts have to be viewed in the light of the particular social group that the immigration just because a suspect yes roger i'm not sure i understand your answer to judge agee's question it seems to me that the finding was that if she were to call on the police to respond to the abuse regardless of what motivated here is that that  there would be a response in other words that the government was not simply stand in by those types of claims and so it seems to me that whether you are however you  decline the social group if it mowed if it motivated the abuse the abuse is still the fact that she's suffering and she would call the police based on the abuse not on the fact that she owned property or not and the fact that the man did it because she was locked into a marriage or whatever the reason was and i don't see how your point addresses the factual finding made by the agency the question of the police's effectiveness your honor in responding to her call could well depends on how the police if you her interviewed people in her case that the as the record shows when she  would you think she would call the police and say i own property and i'm being abused because i own property she called the police because she had been head or she'd been raped or she'd been abused or shoved out or whatever threatened finding and your response was well if we had a different social group it would be a different response and the answer is i can't see that that's that's really where i'm at you or i i think that that's something that the immigration judge could should explore is whether or not the response what in fact be different if the police you know this we we can't know for certain but you know the circumstances in the village in which she lived it could be well known for instance that she owned property and so in that regard the police could have sympathy for her abuser if they shared his views i mean this is the type of thing that should be explored on remand before the immigration judge who ultimately should be the person who addresses all of the evidence and use all of them in light of the standards so why do you say the police response in this case was ineffective well your honor the police did arrest her abuser and then release him the next day without consequence and then he continued to abuse her for years afterwards you know it doesn't this is this is this is the st business day after a weekend and holiday and i would suggest that you could go to any domestic relations court in any county in any state you wish to pick in this country and you would find scores hundreds of people who have been arrested over the weekend for domestic abuse who are going to be released today and i mean that happens every week in the united states how's that any different than what happened in honduras well your honor i'm not sure i understand your question if in fact the police are unable and unwilling to control abusers in this type of situation that would seem to be yes your honor i think i understand what judge agee's same if it's based on your argument that the fact that he was arrested and released is some indication that the country of honduras is unwilling to control the abuser and protector if that's the standard been the same can be true because it said to be true in america a perhaps or i really can't i don't really know how government really this case as this court has been focusing on right now boils down to one i guess what is you don't need to get to a p or any of  that the immigration judge and the board in this case made at least two probably three different despite independent dispositive findings st with respect to nexis that regardless of whether her social group is  meets the standards for i guess would be considered a cognizable social group that she didn't show a nexus between that social group and her harm specifically that the harm she suffered was either due to inner family disputes that is problems having to do with the children that she had from a previous marriage or to her purchase of i guess what her ownership of property petitioners desire to get his hands on that property second the board and the immigration court also found independently as this court has emphasized that there was a state action in the case right that on the one occasion in two thousand and twelve that she did go to the police not only did the police come and pick up the petitioner's husband and take him to jail he was brought before a local magistrate the next day and the magistrate said if you have any future problems at least according to her testimony if you have any future problems we can pick them up again so we have that nd independent ground and rd there was also the possibility of relocation within the country if she were to reach the remove there she no longer owns the house she can live somewhere else and also her persecutor is in a salvadoran national who lives twelve hours away by bus and who hasn't been in contact with her since tw sixteen and all of those findings are findings that she never challenged on review she took it to the board she never filed a petition for review those issues were are are settled and also when she filed her motion for re consideration reopening i you know whichever way this court takes it she did not mention any of those three independent to try and a spot of determinations yes your honor what's the difference between inner  family abuse and domestic violence i think that in fact it the interfamily abuse could be domestic violence but the motivation is different right the motivation with regard to it with regard to her social group it has to do with he is targeting her because she is a hunter and woman who is unable to really to leave the relationship whereas the demand whereas the immigration judge found that the harm is on an alternative ground that is his dislike of his of the stepchildren of her children and their interactions with their natural filter and so she has children from a former spouse who died and she has her current children and her children would get and her the children of her former marriage would get in the way of the children from the latter marriage and then she would get involved and on the one occasion domestic violence it's just that the nexus question is why and the question that has to do with whether or not it's because she's in a social group or whether or not they're targeting her for the her husband is targeting or for other reasons so one can be committed to the victim of those social you know of domestic violence for a whole litany of reasons correct it's just it's just that the reason why she is a victim of the mystic violence in this case has doesn't have anything to do with the social group that she is a member  or is unrelated the social group but even if this court thinks that that's all tied up very nicely together that that you can't disentangle that that it doesn't matter because the state was willing to enter seat and there's no indication that she can't reasonably relocate were she to be removed back to the honduras yes your honor he had a question yes it seems strange to me that the factual finding use the word enter instead of because it seems to me if it's domestic dispute regardless of the definition of the family in this case and he could children and stepchildren but it was a family of some kind at least that's what domestic violence means and and i sort of thought it might have been a typ can you hear me sir i can hear your honor can you hear me ok ok we were frozen i think is around fourteen minutes or so i will give you some  let mr tennyson let you know i don't know if you'll use the whole time or not but we'll do we'll start with fourteen minutes all right thank you your honor i think we left off we were talking about whether it's enter and try family dispute but i would like to go on very quickly and say a person who comes in immigration proceedings they're not limited to presenting one social group for their asylum claim in fact they're encouraged her social groups earlier if it even if there was a problem with a b and with them applying it be to her case she had there were a lineage all of these other social groups she had are depended upon facts that existed at the time  prior to the time of her hearing at the time of her airing and she had her and counsellor encouraged to put before the court all of the potential social groups that they have so you know the regardless of how you consider this case whether or not it is a denial of a motion to reopen a mile of denial of a motion to reconsider or you know you go to the due process claim in either case there are plenty of reasons for the immigration court to deny th you know to deny her motion with regard to reopening it you know she had made a prime if a showcase on any of those claims that she had specifically given that she already had three outstanding you know she had three other alternative reasons that were dispositive for why her claim was dismissed second with regard to if it's a reconsideration case because there are three again three alternative reasons why regardless of whether or not she's right your argument she was right in h reconsideration argument why the immigration judge you know there was nothing new to go back to and finally if it's due process claim if we went all the way to the due process claim there's no prejudice because there are again those three other alternative dispositive reasons  be pulled out from under her midway through the process and in fact would make more sense to require her to put on all this evidence when as a practical matter it's not the type of thing the immigration judge should have considered given that p r c she was the case