question for the court today is wouldn't a reasonable fact finder have been compelled to find that a child being sent back to a gang riddled country where he had been the victim of violence had a reasonable fear of future persecution the petitioner in this case testified at the immigration hearing when he was nine years old his case was not skilfully presented to there was confusion at the immigration judge at the immigration hearing as to whether he was qualified to obtain derivative t p s status and the answer to that is no he was not mediation i mean we have ice child who's now fourteen is that correct three yes seventeen years old has this been through the circuit mediation ram it has not another question i have present an interesting legal issue about the street children as to whether that's an identifiable social group even if you're incorrect on that point  cide and should go back for a decision well your honor we argue in the brief that although this was not skilfully or even competently presented by mr panetta at the hearing and if you review the transcript you can see that we believe that the predicate facts are in the record for the court today to grant asylum to julio on the basis of his membership in the social group and the likelihood of future persecution that's not my question my question is if you are wrong on that point does he still have an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that maybe needs to be explored in the administrative kind acts before this court a case for asylum that was not presented by mr panetta and i think the way we would be able to do that is to more specifically define the social group of and more discreetly define a well i think that the  class of homeless orphans targeted by gang violence they share they share a common caressed characteristic and their perceived by the group as it as perceived as a group by society  you've heard the term street kid street urchins this is a very discrete group and what makes this even more discreet is this this is a group of children who would be orphaned by the deportation proceedings and whose parents are lawfully residing in the us and their specific group would not just be children who are in el salvador and on the streets but those who would be or virtue of the immigration laws and returned you know i would submit i was i mean i would submit for a broader definition that orphans on the streets of el salvador there are subject to gang violence that's was that this would open the floodgates to any homeless child on the streets of a violent country we believe that in the first instance this case is unique because this is  never actually home straight now but if his parents are lawfully residing here under t p s status granted by the attorney general if you were sent back he would be sent back without relatives to care for when there was some question about the grandma testified at the hearing that he had never met the grandmother the grandmother was caring for nine children and for the immigration judge to assume that he could live with the grandmother if you went back down there was an unreasonable inference and it just wasn't supported in the r violence that was offered here was the stealing of the ice cream kong correct yes that's right when he had his ice cream cones dolan he was not a street child he lived with a relative correct right now that's true he did he did live with a relative and it's all the more reason that when he is homeless on the streets he's even more likely to be subject to this type of violence and i think the important thing the important thing to remember about that incident  this goes straight to his subjective fear of being returned to that country and if the government tries to belittle this incident i mean this is a nine year old child being robbed at knifepoint and the i j a found this to be order and take your chances why as a practical matter if the government is really standing here and saying we didn't really don't deport children who at nine years old are living here with the mother who's under protected stat given to her by the united states government why wouldn't the government be able to collapse that process so that you could suspend this appeal it could be a final removal order and right final removal order could be the exercise of discretion and the papers could cross i mean it just seems to me that to put this back into the vagaries of a system that brought us here in the first place it's kind of a high stakes proposition and if the government is really saying there is this possibility and for whatever reason this case got all the way to the ninth circuit and we were all trying to figure out why or how could the government really just since the government's control of process collapse the process and do this all at once and advise the court is if the government were to decide not to exercise its discretion then we might have to decide the ca take the initiative to speak to the agency we were all here everybody agrees it's an unfortunate and difficult case and one of the options we will consider although i don't know well because we don't make any advance notion on it is whether we would order it to mediation so this could all be explored in a more neutral setting and not with us and not necessarily you know with you having to make representations when you don't have your client with you they didn't like cases brought to them that way and they would prefer that they go all the way through legal proceedings and then advertise the discretion that that to me is is really amazing we have  basically six thousand immigration cases going through the ninth circuit the second circuit has an enormous volume and in a case which is so extraordinary is this one for that agency sometimes there's just an attention and again i can take this back to the agencies and explain how you're understood see this case at the point before argument notice about membership in a particular social group and in this case that administrative record page one of the southern but just in your head answered were you mistreated no and then he checked no box  including he did not check membership in a particular social group and then from the agency's point of view in terms of evaluating membership in a particular social group in the notice of appeal to the board petition so that he had established political asylum that's administrative record page twenty five and then in the brief to the board he said the test money established the requirements for granted political asylum administrative record twelve so from the agency's point of view membership in a particular social group had never been mentioned and political asylum had been mentioned twice so the records that's an excellent point and so it could be reminded under been torah all right i think that we have the situation in mind here and the lay of the land do you have anything that you want to