overturn the decision of the b r t eight and the hijacking misapplying the standard for social distinction as well as for reasons related to their distinctions social distinction component means and isn't that your challenges tese whether or not you have evidence to shadow those who reported oppose gang activity or socially distinct within the community and in the ivory coast  are ways to prove that saying it's easy about syria hard but that he could come forward with actual evidence demonstrate that in the society issue here the ivory coast there is a societal acceptance or a perception that the group big meeting is in be recognised as a group that's the plan is it their speech possible to demonstrate that kind of thing with so if if we were to to even if we were to agree with you that it cost the standard the result here would be what out the whole point i think it of the particular already paul best is it has to be particular enough that you can define it if you can't define it then you don't have a group or a particular social group past the particular social group and we were asking about the past persecution and we were asking about well founded fear how is it the case that he can be  m just focused on the well founded fear from that he can say he has a well founded fear of future persecution when he himself has never been subjected to violence and he relocated his family and they are safe was not going to survive thank you thanks very much wealthy people were seen as somehow the state are different from the rest of the population and might meet the social distinction requirement well in my state of the particulary requirement don't know exactly what wealth wealth mean different things to different people and where exactly you draw the line so the lines on the end are fuzzy i mean on the other side of the coin for a group that is particular but not socially disdained i don't know why anyone would persecute on the ground but let's say people age thirty two for example we know exactly who is in that group it's very clearly defined but it would be unlikely that there is any evidence in a particular country that people age thirty two are set apart from society in to past persecution well founded your persecution because i didn't see the government took those things on no i didn't take those things on because they want decided by the agency so it's our position that the court if they disagree on a particular social group question it should go back to remain and for the border to address those findings that it did not surpass persecution and because a standard which the borg did not  does continuing to do what had been done meet the criticism that the test produces inconsistent results and it's there were flawed well i think with the board is acknowledging in any the genie is that in its prior  it really fully developed and explain what all of these different criteria meant and how they are to operate in so to the extent that there may have been inconsistent results or unclear results what the clarifying exactly how these criteria are supposed to operate how the results were the same under this other prior precedent how it ends up the same and how should we looking at it going forward and the distinctions between the three different  cubans who are homosexual or the other protected categories things like religion race political g category and how how do you make that consistent with the words prior rulings and how is it consistent if we're going to apply the heading of the just and generous how how person is claiming to be a part of and when you look at you know former gang members just generally claiming that they might be targeted there are so many different scenarios that somebody could fall and so if if it were the case there was treated as a particular social group you at least agree that it's hard to reconcile that with the assertion former gang members are not a particular social group because if you can say agree with you i think what this was a nexus case it was not a case about a particular source they just said it could be but that's it's been treated including in our all in the seventh circuit in this court has  and now by the itself as a particular social group case so we take that as it has in fact in a particular social group case how can you square the particular  discussion or how it's been interpreted in later cases about why this with the with the assertion that former gang members are a particular enough group it's a tough  why isn't that particular enough to say that people who work in violence or to your social group you can say you know if there's historical facts have the courage to stand up and say i've witnessed this violence you should and i can identify these people and you need to stop them police because people are worried that if they do that somebody with a machete is going to come to their house and take their head or the head of their children or somebody else they love so it was a very particular group and it's not the whole society it's pretty narrow group who've got the guts to do it and you can tell we've done it because there are certain historical markers they saw  reported violence so my question to you is why is it that particular enough if it's not explain what would make it more particular than historical facts i saw a crime i call the cops and report they assisting in prosecutions of the witness these are just character in and these are just things to consider but i will you know knowledge particularly question is a little bit more difficult on that particular social group that is proposed but you know i do think that we have a very strong argument on how that group is not socially distinct either and so fails also for that reason but also in a country rarity and the there are record contains evidence that people that there is evidence and the record here includes evidence that as a group and as a society people are free to report that people instead resort to vigilantly justice in cases where they police any different than anyone else as you acknowledged in the record there are there's information of people handling these gangs and other ways of protesting against the police for not doing enough and there is some evidence of vigilante justice so they still think there's a separate distant group of individuals who report how do we force storm the decisions about the s g and silent being made on what someone thin about society generally when there's a record evidence that has been presented by petitioner suggesting that and the group is easy it is one that is a smaller group from the rest of if it's not enough to have a record that reflects that people generally in society are afraid to come forward and that they don't generally report and extent respond it's using vigilante justice instead of reporting to the police but i don't think there is the evidence on the record to show that people aren't reporting there is no evidence on the record to show how often these things are report d to the police or not in fact the record evidence shows that there is people have been critical of the police for not stepping up and doing enough which you know means that there could be more coming forward to the police feeling like their complaints have not been h suffered past the situation on account of a protected ground it could shift the burden to the government if there is ask this occasion on account of a protected ground there's a presumption that relocation would not be reasonable and so the internal review bulletin for internal relocation is directly related to a particular social question so if we were hit with that we conclude even if you were a particular social group and even if you demonstrated past persecution or were roughed out if your future persecution it's your view we ha remain and we couldn't just rely on this record as to whether we were occasion was distinct things one is objective definitional question can you describe this group and the other is a subjective question that is from a subjective perspective society if all you're talking about is it that and whose obligation is it to make that subjective test showing based on the record isn't it isn't it isn't it mr cold waters to come forward with evidence to demonstrate particularly here flying is that they were there violence does not seem to have any wind or reason to it i mean doesn't that undermine the assertion that he's rational i think that's true