good morning may please the court my name is patrick gregory i'm with the firm of ship carty and bacon and i represent would you like to pull the microphone up just a little bit thank you thank you oh yes much better much better  of start off what we you know a lot of what happened to petitioner is is really not it dispute as we point out in a reply it's a matter of thirteen gang they quote knew that i had just returned from the u s in spite of everything i was going to be killed they were going to cut my head my hands my legs and of quote and he also referred to being put in a plastic bag  in front of his father's house so what would be most fun to me is if you can tell us in light of our case law and why this is he's a member of read this decision and there reviewed a couple subsequent b i a decisions that were issued and but in enrica is the petitioner testified against openly against the distinguish your case from those two cases well i think the important point of the case i was referring to is it said the rule that is emerged is the following to determine whether a group is a particular social group for the purpose is  the agency must make a case by case determination as to whether the group is recognised by the particular society in question well but the so this is the problem then to case by case doesn't doesn't mean each case by each case in the sense be i may not reject a group solely because it had previously found a similar group in a different society to lock so that substantial this is the same group in the same society that's the problem so what in terms of race versus what's the difference that's what i need to know well i'm an ag will rodriguez as well which is and i'm a published case i think part of the reason the court is referring to a case by case record or case by case instance is the records differ in each case and if you look in this case and we provided about seventy pages of you know country conditions  and we cited some of them are brief but one i'd like to focus on here is it's in the record three forty three and it's in a report in gangs in central america and the portion of the port  members report that employers are often unwilling to hire them tattooed former gang members especially were ripped turning to porteous from the united states who are often native english speakers have had the most difficulty finding gainful employment i'm gay members have gone through complete tattoo removal along extent expensive process which many file feel is necessary due to better blend into society it is a stigma of leading to two difficulties in obtaining employment is that the stigma that matters well no i think i think the stigma that matters is bein a member of a former gaming i mean i think notion that they were divisible by showing that or recognizable by showing that they were recognizable because they had to choose another words it was sort of a second level argument in reaction to the fact that earlier cases it said i mean gang members but corrupt officials well there's the question of how much that's worked i mean i think when you read the entire seventy pages of country condition does it show do you have any any showing that the government has been involved in this there's nothing in the record here and the immigration judge took a good deal of time to point out what that evidence is in the record to seems to me to be there's no indication we shouldn't believe it well i my my reading of it and i think it's only really come to you if you read all those pages yes you see you see some references to  government is is take it but but they haven't you know they haven't significantly worked how to how do you i mean how do you say that you say that we're in the record does approve it that they haven't worked is a matter of fact the age the the record indicates that they are working slowly but surely i beg to differ i think the record refers to the fact that efforts are being be part of the standard is they've been unable to stop this it's been a terrible problem is that the question is if not behind it are the acquiescing in it and so i think the question is in the c r s report one of the  exhibits that the immigration judge did accept and said the judge considered or what in the c r s report compels a different conclusion than what the immigration judge reached accepting the standard is either one thing i want to mention for run out of time is i think the fact that the b i a only addressed the cat claim in in one sentence is is problematic in mandates  summarized that we could look at the what happened in the entire record including the b i decision which was the one that was being reviewed by the board there isn't a complete analysis there would you suggest i mean i suggest it is  here's my question that's bothering me the most in the race up is this court said accordingly when jet reject this challenge the determination that his proposed social group  mean absent or not bank petition aren't we just found when i go back to the that we have a different we have a different record in this case  on the cat claim can you do because i have no clarified that's what i was asking about what specifically what pages in the record of the c r s report would you point us to to support the argument that full consideration of the c r s report would have compelled a different conclusion on the cat claim the sites or the site we say i think matters in your reply brief i don't have them right in front of me right now i would prefer i do think the it's in clude it within the overall site but the site to the social societal stigma section that i just just read and you know i do think this case falls within the pira box statement that said on page ten eighty five eighty six the b i gave no explanation for his decision nor to mention any evidence that considered and i recognize that the i j a has had an opinion but this is a review of the b i a and i don't i don't know what they considered because the they did basically the same thing that happened in the  social groups might are probably largely driven by the fact that gangs should be social groups because there again this is but that nonetheless seems to be where we are in the problem anyway thank you very much and thank you for your take in this case found that former members of a criminal gang are not members of a particular so social group well that was all that case was probably before the latest iteration of what a particular social group is what race lopez was after is that right salvador who are in their gang membership lack sufficient particularity and social distinction to constitute a particular social group yeah i mean i must say that if for example we were talking that the analysis seems as i sort of indicated before seems to be taking in in permissible factors that is whatever it may be a big group it may include some hard question else but that's not the question as to whether it's a particular relief but here you have a guy whose only crime in this country was a geo eye right and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he had any serious criminal history anywhere yes but unfortunately none of the harms that he suffered in el salvador are related to a protected ground there's no nexus zero right but that's a question and i think the answer the question is is that a protected ground know it's not being in a gang it's not the type of particular social group that asylum was because that's a criminal activity but there's no criteria like that i mean i understand that that fellow society members because of that it's like being in you know masons or something but it has a criminal purpose that's true but that's not in the statu except if you have a criminal purpose i mean i understand the strip feel sensible and certainly feel sensible but it's not a stretch all right go ahead ok so his homes were not on account of a protected ground and he has not shown that the government is unable or unwilling to control his the people who harmed him though the board did not directly address the cat issue there's nothing to suggest that it information regarding the societal stigma leading to difficulty to obtain employment the that information and other information in the c r s report would compel a different conclusion well  i guess the only society cannot really identify former gang members he said he there's no way to identify them from from others lodging harms and which were the rival gang members but you know engaging in criminal activity if you're going to be in a gang that does subject you to you know potential harm from other gangs but that's not something that's protected the c r s report does talk about persecution in some cases persecution by citizens in the form of vigilante action but here none of the harms he suffered a rise to persecution mendoza suffered persecution where he was never harmed on account of a protected ground if there are no further questions on the issue of whether or not the board gave sufficient consideration to the cat claim its consideration were short but it was reviewing a decision of the board which was extensive i had understood that and i travolta we had already decided that issue