activities on appeal the issues have been narrowed it narrowed to items one whether the government of el salvador is unable or unwilling to control the gangs and nd whether it's reasonable for her to internally relocate within the country this court has used two standards or way of ways of describing the standard for unable or unwilling to control in cases such as and gangway it really just looked at the fact of the case and said the government either is unable or unwilling to control or not and in a case called men have are it said that unable or unwilling means that the government is essentially completely helpless to control that group more recently and a case called below so the bar this court said that to the extent those two standards differ yun able or unwilling standard prevails we believe that the facts that were presented to the corps and to the board of immigration appeals show that the government of an el salvador's unable or unwilling to control their gangs  and said where that country spent ten years saying they were going to fight back against this group and geeky and maybe they arrested some people but in general their efforts were so minimal but in reality the government wasn't controlling them because on either a local or national level the police or politicians were using them which is something we also submitted here evidence that the government itself had used the gangs for their own political purposes one party would use that gang to try to increase or decrease voting in a particular area so this political connection between the government and the ga shows that it's very similar to what was going on and it's and that's why we believe that just on a purely factual basis looking at the evidence was before the board that the government of all salvador was in the same way that the government of ken really doesn't say much about it except to the site to the board remaining and again switching over i'm so there i think there was one of the questions it's just your arms you have a source that i was wondering why i'm aware but that's that's it the internal relocation and the matches both those questions at well the facts were was that for about two to three months she said from march to about may that she was traveling to the capitol by plus was there some distance and she was traveling to the bus three to five days a week to work and then she would come back so she didn't live there and she wasn't continuing her religious activities during that short window she had decided to leave and that's trying to raise the funds to leave and so during that window she wasn't engaging in her religious activities and she wasn't living in this other place and even still she encountered problems with various criminal actors but well the what i think that really comes down to is the expert opinion in the evidence shows that this game she was afraid of the sentence thirteen gang is net not nationwide and the unrefuted testimony of the expert witness wells that this local group is connected to the national group in a very had on the box set nothing to do with religious persecution that i get back to your point that she was not engaged in religion at the time but that could be a problem if that's the only have the dense harassment that we have or danger if the requirement was that during those two months she had to show that she was persecuted then then that might be right and that is what the respondent of has argued as well that well this this harm that she's talking about isn't related but that isn't what the regulations say the regulations that were in place throughout the entire time of her trials well the recently amended the original version of the regulations said we look at the totality of the circumstances is whether or not it's reasonable for her to relocate and there are a series of factors including civil strife cultural constrained constraints in this case we've argued gender as well as the  judicial infrastructure to judge davis and her original st two opinions talk to her i think it was the nd opinion specifically talked about the evidence we had submitted about the judicial infrastructure of all salvador being one where she really they themselves were not the ones going out doing this religious activity the game was after her because of what she was doing because they view that religious activity she was engaged in is detrimental to them or her mom wasn't doing it her sister wasn't doing it she was described as hyper religious someone who was constantly in charge constantly going out and preaching about god and god is with again trying to overcome and that's that was found by judge davis and judge baker didn't didn't overturn it  or unwilling to control the gangs upon his name is returned to the country and whether she has demonstrated that she could not internally relocate the record does not compel inclusion contrary to that of the agency on both steps to address the violence and they have warned fruit certainly gang violence remains a problem but the situation is not as severe as devastating as it was a decade ago when mr nader left el salvador  did not report the threats that she experienced to the police and so we're all relying on country conditions evidence to know what would have happened to her making this case very similar conclusion that the mexican government would be unable or unwilling to protect that titian or upon return similarly here the generalized country conditions evidence shows that game grounds remains a problem salvadoran government is taking significant steps to come back at it often with american help finally i mean next with respect to internal relocation bears the burden of demonstrating that she could not relocate or that relocation would be reasonable it's usually in these cases it's the h s that bears the burden of demonstrating that relocation i that she didn't meet it on this record she lived in san she lived in the same town the entire time that she was in el in el salvador but she worked in san salvador for a few months and experienced no problems related to her religion she didn't proselytize in the streets but she was speaking to recode workers about that she testified and she didn't experience any threats from related to that at all she was the victim of some random bit motivated simply by criminality but those threats i mean those that didn't rise to the level of persecution mr ramos is correct he does not need to show that the other serious harm she fears would be on account of a protected ground but he does need to show that they were that they rose to the level of past persecution and the court was correct in saying that that was not the case here variants she would not be he didn't believe she would be safe anywhere else but she was safe in san salvador when she was working there during that commute she suffered that's the same as everyone else on the bus they weren't looking for her she was experiencing the same that's that happened everyone else that was on the bus and when she was in times over there where she was safe and so while the record might support two different conclusions that's exactly why it can't  conclusion that the agency was wrong hiding or something like that in san salvador she simply chose not to do it she didn't explain why so while she was there she was able to work she was able to move around she went out a nd so it's true that the gang problem remains prevalent in el salvador but that doesn't compel the conclusion that the saudi government would be unable or unwilling to control the safe and this is a long term prospect the evidence was submitted inside in north korea shows that somehow the door was also and dated by the gangs the efforts have not born free this is exactly like the court found  salvador just simply has refused through either pollution of the gangs or using them politically to control them and therefore we think that that this court should take the step of finding the facts should