for the children her school to protect their children from the gangs who were who were attacking them she actually became i did in the political party the libor rate political party who supported candidates who beef up to her political opinion which was pro formal about that really could just observing that there were a bunch of women who do think the reason why it's a particular social group is that there's not a bunch of women who do this i think it's a particularly well defined group that is small and she's part of it and the doctor the women that's going to testify said that women in that situation are like low hanging fruit of the games they oppose or because of gender they don't like it when the women challenge them and they don't like her politics which  political component where the police within the government in power yes and that is i think the most important thing in life and anyone who is against that against corruption against violence they game does actually try to oppress them and they have  party is what was happening in this case from the national party and the gangs are colluding together that's a test i think that's of the record shows yes in fact the vice president of the honduran congress indicated that about the only proof he has to native forty percent of police chiefs in honduras were members of organized crime so you have this you have this going on at the lower levels of society where people like my client are putting on a campaign for mayor and putting up campaign posters and she's at risk from the gangs in her neighborhood and in coronation with the local candidate and i think at the upper levels it's going on to dr going to testify but it's more nefarious and became visible by being involved parents korea and by campaigning for the big party members he said there's no time frame for when these games will take the reprisal but part of the culture of the game is that they don't forget what was her political activity in behalf of the labor party specifically where she would be a democrat as a liberal artist or she was involved in the campaign for marrying her in her in her area and she was out putting up campaign demanded more security at her school also she took part in a protest at a park demanding for general social justice issues in honduras but not of been a part of any political or i don't think that was it necessarily then a fight so she kind of started with the parents game and as expressed through her support of the libri canada members who are also in opposition to the gang so those two things are connected and they're tied together so the record shows that there is a risk of persecution including torture statutory reason that is your political opinion or your membership particular social group your nationality something like that and in this particular case the board in not pass persecution so what happened well in two thousand and twelve her son was assaulted outside a school and not concerned as any parent would be and so she came to the school and said what are we saying you know what we need to protect our children and in reading in response the who we sent out a patrol car for a couple weeks and that's about what a year later and then she didn't do anything politically or anything else for  court she was only doing it because one of the parent whose parents ah mr pena was involved in handing out flyers and she decided to help not she had enough wires on the streets and she hung up ost her but at no time to anybody ever approach her and threatening her or doing to us so here's the crux of the issue even though this expert mr bormann testified that she now has a valid fear of returning back to honduras because of these activities and nothing ever happened to her because he claims that the games would somehow find out if she had been missing about but there  time when she was in the country there's no evidence they were ever became even aware that she did any of these things so even when she was back in honduras they there is no evidence whatsoever beginning of which were aware and did anything to her case of the supplemental you cited there the court sent the case back because they found that the board did not address in the issues and that issue was because the alien had provided evidence that police officers were involved in mexico with the zetas gang who had executed some four hundred people and members of this gentleman's family the bor should have address but in our case there is no evidence whatsoever that the police any police officer was up or involved in anything the gangs were doing to her or her family not there is evidence that some members of her family were involved in all to cation with gangs and over a period of years in the random incidents so her cousins a brother in law and some nephews were killed by gang members these were complete wallace's acts of violence and murder that happened just randomly to her family does not indicate that there's a similar pattern against her own family thus this case is is completely distinguishable and should the court should no i understand your especially if you were to reverse the board the nexus would have to be that not the court somehow finds that these things that she did involve a parent group ending up posters somehow indicated that the games were retaliate against her based on her political opinion though we have to find that no reasonable fact finder could that the games would find out that is if they had never become aware of it before they had never threatened her when she was actually living on the attempt yeah but i mean you got right down to it i suppose your argument is if she had show  at the game would kill her if she returned because they had opposed because she had opposed to gangs that would not get her asylum in the united states she's and she has not done so here because you know for all intents and purposes the gains never bothered her because they were saw her as a person opposition you saw her as a concerned parent who want to protect her child and you know if there's a at this point she but you're not concerned about that well it's not i thought this is a tragic situation our hunger is if you know it as far as i know it may still be the murder capital of the world it is a very very dangerous but does that mean we allowed every hunger and to be transplanted to the united states just because they have a run in or a beef with some gang member should not should not get justice she gets the law very well your honor the   because she has not shown as such a group is identified by you know as identifiable in the hunger in society because the law requires that to be a particular social group the group must be distinguished or in the society and socially hypothetically she has known that would help then at that point the court would have to send the case back to see if the group that she identified is what the board considers to be a particular social group because the board never reached that issue the board only said you never showed a connection at all to even the hypothetical that is there was no nexus to what it is that you're trying to establish to get to the ground because wh record that she actually was helping elect mr me here because he opposed gangs that was part of what he was about but he was part of this third party in hundreds there are two big parties there and this little third a party was coming up and called the libor a party and that's who she decided to vote for or at least not before but to assist in electing one of their people who campaigned so there is no reason we would she was doing it because she opposed gangs the general rule that justice and the law not synonymous term there are i i mean i would beg to differ because you know i understand your arms concern but sometimes you know just they did what she knew this and say that they did what they did but what she did did not this race closer to danger because nothing ever happened or that's debatable well what i'm saying her family's been subject to random acts of violence but her eight sister or siblings who remain have been remaining there and living on harm so you know to say that we would be doing justice by sending her back where injustice by sara back that's not the case because there is no evidence to show family because a lot of her house esther's on her father's side after she's on her brothers on the other side and her mother the beyond the expert testimony was the introduction or development of you are knows that there was a state motion filed for the state because they're you know removal was pending he probably she probably won't ever be removed either i mean at this point your honor i think she's got to stay until i think that  certain parts they are definitely running entire place in certain elements so this is a factual issue is there a nexus is the central reason why she fears persecution i mean our political opinion there is no evidence on that other than the expert opinion expert opinions on challenged undisturbed opinion is that she does have a well founded fear on account of that opinion the government didn't even more dire him because he was so well credentialed credentialed in over three hundred similar cases so the immigration judge ignored the expert opinion and ruled against a strong man moving as a drug and saying you're not afraid of your politics even though your credible testimony is that you are you're afraid because there's crime and andras and because you were there to robbery that's not what you bought for asylum she filed for asylum because she witnessed members of the parents group be threatened by gangs after he penned up some campaign posters that's in the record you know it's helpful so and challenge i mean after be a trial strategy people don't challenge a witness if they don't think it it hurts them so i mean we can only read you know who been in the trial gallery before we know you know there are reasons we read it i'm simply asking since it's an individual petition or what specific tourettes she received that she can testify i'm the first person to the board that's the first thing that happened and then one of the members other members the parents group was also threatened for death by putting champaign flyers in there but that's not directly to her i can see that but it does show a future possibility of harm to her i think that's an important distinction when you look at the other cases i mean are out there and i've seen you gotta have all of it but would you acknowledge i mean there are other cases where there is evidence more concrete in here of the rich aimed at the person who's asking for the asylum as opposed to the brainy a pitcher of a landscape in which it occurs and i'm in the landscape you nder the mission for we hear the