two years later gang members came to mr and mrs house they threatened to kill mr ned and her son if she and her mother would not pay them money having suffered at the hands of the gang members before fears about what would happen to her were not unfounded as she had already been raped by one of hundreds estimated thirty six thousand gang members there are numerous issues in this case i'm happy to address them but the overarching to woman now we know the persecutors generally don't provide declarations of explaining or describing their motives but we also know that from this court's prior president this court has recognized that rape is about control violence against women it expressed concern that women of the majority of women in honduras remain marginalized discriminated against in a high risk of being subject to violence and the warning here assault and rape women regular leave and i believe that was found in me that that is found in the evidence and so there's a difference between a random act of violence and control of in  are sought to be controlled in hunter s and so i think that your question about whether or not there's a random act of whether or not to breed is persecution based on gender if it's random it's not random in this case if if the court of appeals but i'm saying if it's random obviously the nicer nicer get the president or nice all and women could be a particular social group establish it it's not to i think the problem that most courts have had with finding that women are particular social group is particulary and in this case i would note that the board of immigration appeals assumes that it m tell the difference between this group and the other people in society the role of the adjective hunder in women because you didn't say women in general were women does that does that mean  not demonstrate that she was persecuted on account of her membership in that group so while i would love to have a very long discussion as to the viability or cognize ability of women in hunter is being a particular social group the board didn't reach that issue so i think that we need to look at it and that's why i'm jumping i jumped over it as well in the beginning of this conversation that i had me in the beginning of this argument  i don't think so here i do think that obviously that because well i mean it does show there is evidence in the record again members threatened to abducting assault women and it is relevant that there was say that she is able to provide direct evidence again we're looking at the country of course she didn't get a statement as to from her from her persecutors as to whether or not you know what was the basis for the obviously the demands were being made of her and he is her son and he was threatened if these demands did not get if if she did not meet these demands so on if he's seeking asylum on account of being her son a member of her family i know that there is only two minutes and forty five seconds left but i do have one further question and that is also where certain repeated claims even if  appeal raise the perera issue meaning that she challenged based on supreme court precedent whether or not the new immigration court at all had jurisdiction over these proceedings based on her claim that she  that it is very a case the more found that we believe there's substantial evidence to support their grounds that petition did not show that record evans persuasively demonstrates a hunger a society recognized either of these groups women liking effective familiar protection under the knowledge of criminal activity or perpetrated by gang members and children fathered by gang members as a result of rape whose birth is evidence of other criminal activity again very quickly the issue of whether or not she  women locking a male protector instead of what the board actually examined which was during women like in effect the familial protection so she actually changed the terms very key terms of the proposed particular social group and now but you're also do not provide any evidence that hinder a society generally perceives others based on your country reports are maybe even a expert witness a trial with some kind of discriminatory law that the record except in a very limited amount in the record that is it is a single sentence that is just making a general observation or un report and it is not actually discussed or examined in detail as to how pervasive it is we ship to the next is point because that kind of the social group won't dispose of the whole occasion because the voyage skipped over  there is no evidence she was singled out based on the just the mere fact that she was on a hunger where you could have been a child it could have been a young man could have also been singled out thus these gang members  said please do not tell anyone about this that's it that's all the facts we have so to extrapolate from those limited facts to make this generalized concept of claim that well this is something that all grown women experience or are always subject to as part of this criminal or persecution it is just not there so it's a it's a bridge too far thus and also if we look at the actual evidence in this case what good is the evidence really so compelling to overturn the board's decision on nexus in this case no it's not because we know that gang members based on background evidence to victimize many members of society not just sexually but also criminal extortion and other other things drugs so we believe that the record what it shows is there's general gang violence that occurs that victimizes hundreds of thousands of people in the society and there is no linkage between the rape and the subsequent extortion because two years later the some of the gang members who showed up to ask for extortion never mention a rape they never said anything about it so odd she mary said well i thought like one of them may have been the radios but she had no proof of that because both times the gang members wore masks so she recognizes gang members by their tattoos but you don't really recognize that there are actual identities  her membership in a specific groups it had everything to do with the fact that the gang member saw them as a source of funding and surely criminal motive they targeted them and then when they failed to comply the gang members made death threats twenty one of which was children fathered by gang members as a result of rape whose birth is evidence of the criminal activity away from the board found there is no social distinction out because there is no evidence whatsoever in this record to show the nurse you recognize those children fathered by doing more versus all the great as somehow a separate group in a discrete group in society and then number two he said well i'm also i vote so how a claim of future persecution based on because i'm a member of there is no evidence as i said before that they came through their door that they victimized in the past based on this that this was some kind of a they had the animists against this family there was no evidence whatsoever that this was like  because a family instead all the evidence shows that they were just targets off here that they found out they had a business they found that they had money they made a demand now remember claims that well i was specifically targeted because they saw me standing next to my mother and they said aha we're going to kill your son if you don't give us the money well there are plenty of board cases that show that just because a me said they knew about her vulnerability on page one hundred and sixty six they saw that my son would have been our weakness and that because of that they knew we would give up the money to protect him so it was just strictly that's what was made me as a means to achieve their goal which is to rob this frantic stuart this family it was not to target him specifically as a member of the hernandez family moreover his claim is also undercut by the fact that her sister and her mom who also had death threats made against them simply moved to another town an hour and a half away and they have remained for at least two europe before the hearing here a couple don't know incidents whatsoever when in fact they had no run in w so we didn't go to them because that well there's no evidence in the record to support such a coin and then finally the similarly situated relatives of evidence also undercuts the torture claim because this court  questions i just like the quickly sum proposed it should be changed to hunger in women lacking a male protector because unpaid seventy six of the oral decisions he said that it's not immutable because they can become no only if an older brother a husband a male neighbor becomes part of their household i think she was referring to the household so i would just say that that issue was it was addressed and in terms of just the record in general which was raised by my colleague the issue here is not that there weren't other motives there were other motives as to i mean there are gay members and hundreds committing crimes everywhere but when it comes to petitioner just because something is a crime doesn't make it not persecution and when it came to petition or she is she was one hundred dollars women and she was vulnerable the record i very clear that hunter and women are will almost inevitably become a victim of gender based violence and with that i would be happy to answer any additional questions