we're here to determine whether substantial evidence supports the finding that the groups proposed by story are not socially distinct i like to take a look at very quickly the board and the decision with respect to this case recognizing that the attorney general should her decision and maybe we should get to the board and the i j a found that the sexual and physical abuse and threats jury had experience in what the myler at the hands of a grandfather and a father and husband is cousins rose to the level of past persecution however the board upheld the i j s determination that zuri had not shown that she was persecuted on account of a cook nice well particular social we need the given the limbo status of all of that we need to get into that i mean it seems to me that that is really sort of about persecution not so much about distinctness a social group can we just decide the distinctness of social group without him wrestling with a standards it was only a case where the case was overwrought because the board did not conduct a separate an individual case by case analysis and that's the reason the case was overturned but the a b actually affirmed the frame dollars new and to the extent that the attorney general is trying to tell the board and judges what to do is simpler miscible he can't do that unless the cases are referred to himself so it's ok by you if we just say the court to use his own independent and alice's and apply the standard the way it is written under we're doing those and other cases from the board if i may continue so i guess i changed my outline i'm sorry about that ok i think it's important to note a few things said the dissent set because i really like the descendants perspective on this case and i thought they did a really nice job with a now insist on this case and remember that the board and neither the board of the immigration judge went through a full tell full detail analysis as to the elements and the factors that it needs to consider the dissent dead ended to send them down with land stated that in the matter of an r c the board never stated that a spouse or long term relationship is necessary to establish a particular social distinct group under the act i think that's critical because both the immigration judge and the board claim well it is not exactly the same kind of relationship they are using  g there is no way that a song could be provided or should be granted and that's not the case you really have to do an independent analysis and take a look at the individual elements to see whether protection should be afforded in the particular case child and having a child relationship is no different in my opinion as a husband wife relationship we're talking about intra family relationships here and the victim is being abused by that particular abuse or whether it's a child whether whether it's a husband and wife why would that matter in the analysis as to whether or not there's a relationship a relationship that the child the person and the wife are unable to leave because of the norms in their society or because in this case her age but so i guess without reference to sort of an analogous marital relationship how is it under existing precedent that this group of young girls who can't leave their families you know are as i guess courts of say set apart distinct recognizable visible characteristics how does that actually work i mean it just strikes me that we're talking about half of half a population or something right i mean well that's true you know honor but there's case law on what this country conditions report to specifically address the fact that these children are suffering they're victims they have laws out there that recognize them these are children that are from want t young because of their children able to leave the limiting factors in this particular case and it's social really distinguishable you can tell because there are cases there are laws there are  criminal acts that prevent this abuse from happening so they are socially distinct otherwise se wouldn't have any laws so hanny cases that would prevent it and it's not that this is going to open  floodgates and allow these cases to come in because most of times is children are not able to come across they're not able to dictate in state what there are social harm isn't there very often not able to leave their families because of their age because of their konami conditions so i think this is going to have a very limiting in fact just like with the domestic abuse cases not every woman that was abused was able to come into united states and allege that she's entitled to her side and she had  girls or young women guatemala who cannot leave their family as a result of their age or economic conditions we want to say that that's recognized as a distinct social group within guatemalan society where we point to what you expert reports like the expert reports we have here and want the maila and the laws the guatemalan laws and the social norms and the practices as well as in this case stories personal experiences demonstrate that the rationale behind a r g holding also applies to young girls who societies turn a blind eye to the severe abuse based on the notion that they are subordinate to or subordinate within their family so i think that the fact that we have reports here that establish that the groups are what the modern girls or young women can that lead their family it shows that it is socially distinct case because primarily because of the age then the kind of economic conditions you know ten year old can i just get up and leave their house from their grandfather their fathers abuse in them and sexually abusing them so there are laws out there recognize this is an issue that this isn't a problem this is a problem there are laws that were passed to actually address th i've been in force nine out of ten cases and don't even go to prosecution they don't find individuals you know responsible for the ranks so if not here where are these children going to be able to get these protections when they can't get it in their country so just a question so we've got this case called to steal areas st is the st the attorney general that says persecute torrie action toward a group maybe relevant faction a term in the visibility of a group in a particular society the social group was not meant to be a catchall and cannot be defined exclusively by the fact that the group is targeted for persecution and it sounds like in response to george wilson's question about sort what we cite you said country conditions reports suggesting that women and children are at risk subject to abuse what do you do with a case like a steel arius that seems to say that might be relevant but it can't be all you cite to us well you know we're not just signing to that we're not just claiming that this case because of their persecution i mean part of the reason that this young girl was targeted was because of her age because she was female because she was a minor because she was nine years old and all the way through of girls or young women and while molly who cannot leave their family because of their age or economic condition lacked the necessary social distinction in quite a moment society and nd even under the relaxed standard of the now over ruled a matter of a r c d our visitor is lorenzo did not qualify for relief so if you take a r c d as a given or even the logic of b r c g what's the big difference between married women and young girls analyze this case under a r c if you look at the fact that that was the law at the point when the immigration judge made her decision and the board decided this case and just compared the facts of a r c t to this case and said that it was analogous say i can answer that i think that's a yes and i think the appeal is pending in the d c circuit yes again but we would argue what would be though that what's contained in a b would be what you should decide qualify for asylum which is the mutability the particular already and social distinction so that's that's in a b that's what you would decide this case and the government would prevail and just based on the analysis yeah i mean so it seems like the best answer that you have is forget about a r c g n a b in the district of columbia on the d c circuit and forget about it just go back to like all that stuff precedent and how do you decide social distinctness and this is how you do it in the states exactly but you can it's kind of a tricky analysis and this case because the petitioners claim was based on most entirely on a r c t and when she when she talked about the dissent in this case and that was like a merely an recognized as a group that needs protection well again that is that is a law that is generally a political to people across the whole country so it's not that you get into problems with that the distinction there because it's a it's a large general application and then if you go a step further in the asylum analysis that's contained and maybe to an order to can to qualify for asylum you still have you have to prove that the government is unwilling or unable to protect this this group or this this particular social group and a law that that's passed to protect these folks would immediately cut against but haven't you so maybe i'm wrong about this but i thought the bit about the government can't predict i can't protect them that would run the persecution of the threat of future persecution and you guys have said that will give you that one we're talking about the distinctness of the social group so how does the government there are laws on the books how does the government's failure to enforce those laws affect the distinctness of the social group and may just be missing something you know you're correct on that but again that that goes to the entire analysis where persecution it happened in this case but again it was it was decided when the error c g was in effect so you're not doubling back are you on your earlier acknowledgement that she gets past persecution or the threat of future persecution no the immigration judge in the board said that she had persecution but again they were c g that was in effect of the time kind of muddied the waters as far as the analysis you know that decision was based on concessions by the h s in that case that persecution specific girls are going women and bottom one cannot leave their family because of their age or economic conditions recognize them which standard of review are we really travelling under here i've got to confess i'm sort of genuinely confused about this because there's like a dyno vote standard that applies to sort of social distinction generally and then a substantial evidence standard that applies i guess if the board has made sort of subsidiary factual findings about this class exactly where are we as this court has said the ultimate question of whether or not  group constitutes a particular social group is a question of law but if you go to matter of any v g they talk about how the analysis under that is an evidence based analysis where you look at the facts of the case to see whether or not they prove that it was socially distinct or whether it was particular or immutable so the overarching it's been over but it's not like this court is like an immigration court you look at the fate that passed the case and decided you have to look at what the where the and then other a few other point i'd like to mention to the issue of humanitarian humanitarian asylum if she doesn't prove that her group is has social distinction it doesn't count as a particular social group so the eleven note three makes that point where it still has to be a cognizable social group in order to account for humanitarian silent petition or waived her religious persecution claiming kat by not mentioning in the brief have struggled with the social distinct criteria i don't think is very straightforward and very often it depends on their particular evidence has been included and i would ask that you look at all the evidence that we officers to just comply with what he says and do what he says and i had to conduct their own analysis and that's precisely the reason they he overruled my head of a r c g because they didn't conduct their own analysis they didn't consider the facts of the case but that's what that this case they're not analogous and i don't think that's how cases should be addressed how they should be decided if they don't fit exactly into this little square box you can't do any further analysis i think you've got it appl group i think the law all the reports that was submitted the dissents decision or his analysis all show that in this case it's a nice simple particular social group rather than to remand the case back to the immigration judge to decide anitarian asylum and if you have any questions thank you very much for your patience thank you court is in recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning