case which i believe is a civilian witness and in a serious crime in el salvador who have assisted in law enforcement he had on a r four one seven he had recognized two people from the embassy eighteen going he gave information to the police and was going to id those two individuals two people later had beaten beaten him up seen and it was for helping the police and would get worse i'm just assuming that this other one is the more important one and how do you define it i don't well how was it defined before the before the i j a before their mothers and judge well exactly how we stated the civilian witness who was from the same group of people also n a r four one seven the emesis eighteen even said that they knew the police was calling him to help me try to move but they found him he only told the police of his new address well we so let me ask you this so the board has laid out a standard for analyzing social group in i believe it's e v g a if i'm not mistaken right yes so would you mind going through just so i make sure i understand your your argument how there am a little framework matches up with this particular social group ok so in other words you know the first requirement was composed of members with a common immutable characteristic the second was defined with particular eighty and three socially distinct within this  question so how does this particular social group match up with that criteria so and what is the evidence in the record that supports your your so the three problems that you had mentioned the immune ability would be the past experience as a witness to the police car fire being able to id the m s e teen gang members and making a report to the police with valuable information to convict those criminals that would be mutable characteristic of that experience the social visibility or would be the the the social and socially distinct and the second time when they came to his house so he was active and actively participating in helping to convict those criminals which there were other witnesses potential witnesses who never saw who never came up because they were afraid of the retaliatory actions of gang members which is prevalent in that country he was the only witness brave enough to step up so i would say that that is socially distinct from other people in that country where corruption is prevalent and no one wants to get involved in any situation where they can be harmed or their families can be harmed which has happened in many cases  petitioner had to actually testified in court correct correct and here with they said is that he appeared at the police station and he was asked to come back i guess they have some threatened and decided not to go to the police day she was threatened and physically harmed and then he decided not to be a witness after that right he had given a police report at the beginning that the night of the incident he had also gave a follow up report when they came to his house and then there was a different incident where he made a police report just on the threats of the phone calls but i understand your argument and the best case the case that is throughout cooperate with the police is that sufficiently similar to my bill happened in and i believe it is because he had done pretty much everything except for testifying in court  made a police report which in and to some extent is a public record and people can get information and also the the gangs that miss eighteen they knew about his involvement every step of the way with the police so he was already identified and he was also identified by the public when he participated and made the police report that is socially distinct because most people would not want to get involved like i level level is clear but what isn't clear is if you are a witness and you go through all of the steps but then perhaps you're threatened and maybe your family member is killed and then you decide not to go does that still put you into that social group i see it does because there are many in some instances where that has happened in the past in this country and it's also reported  good morning your honour's counsel my name is margaret kinney taylor i represent the government and this matter it seems from the interchange you've had with opposing counsel that you're most interested in the particular social group civilians who assist law enforcement and so i'm going to direct my initial argument to that particular social group and your honor if you have other questions about the imputed gang membership i'd be happy to turn to that also the question of the level of cooperation is an apt one in this case and very different  because really in this case mr escobar only had five interchanges with law enforcement and these interchanges were not all positive they were also negative subsequently ultimately here boarded contact with law enforcement altogether he refused to cooperate further with them at all and then there were three affirmative interchanges with law reiterated what he had sat a couple days before after seeing the burning vehicle and then the third affirmative one and the only one where he really took an initiative is where he went to the police station himself to make a report council and enrique reinvests it was public testimony and in a footnote in that case the courts it was not deciding as i understand the argument is that there can be something less than testifying public and this falls with with that and that have there been any other cases  that is close to this case but not exactly the same there were some government informants and they were informing against a drug cartel and the score sad in the analysis of this particular part of the case that that was not a particular social group and also in testimony in open court so that's the closest one i can think of in the ninth circuit that answers your question but if you'll permit me to turn to   that she was uniquely that that testifying in court gave her a unique vulnerability and all thought talked about  how the particular social group analysis in that case was and i quote again very specific to that situation so so  us was crafted for our particular social group analysis that involved testifying in open court now that's not to say that it excludes any other kind of particular source or group but and rigorously of us as i understand it was meant for that situation and then finally to answer your question i think the question also turns on if there is something less than testifying in open court and a question about particular social group who really  decides the nitty gritty of us so the fact finder is the agency or the attorney general or the immigration judge or the board however you want t it and this court applies the substantial evidence has to see if some other answer is compelled and in this case even really so is your position that it's up to the b a a determined what evidence is substantial evidence to determine a particular social group well substantial evidence is is the court's standard of review  but but it's the board's in the immigration judges job to analyze the facts and to decide how whether whether those facts are sufficient to constitute the requisite particularities and social distinction didn't constitute a do social group that we found so it was not a legal question not a factual question well i think that that the standard of review was subsequently clarified in that i have a s and so there is as as i understand it kind of a double standard of review so the ultimate question of particular social group cognize ability is as you say your honor a legal question and the court has to know of a review but but it's a very fact specific analysis so did the board in ga effects specific analysis here that's my concern they just basically as i read their opinion they basically just said this is different than in reeky reverse testified yes let me just step over here because i looked at that question also so they made it the board in these numbers like i was never time keeping these initial straight but i think it's an emmy v g yes they say look this is a very each case has to be analyzed on its own claim social grace by case case by case and we emphasize that in a recent case called piri piri brock  back because the board hadn't done that when i looked at the record here that's what concerns me with the board's analysis here that they didn't do the kind of analysis that they say is required and we say  required instead they say well this is different than enrique reba's because there he she testified in here he didn't even go down to the police station to do whatever testify means right  and it's just can't have a solution doesn't quite say there's evidence in the record here that he did he was threatened he left the country there's really presented evidence from the country conditions reports news articles about people who cooperate with the police i see i'm already short on one so i do have some responses to what you've just asked me first of all i have say you know there's no question that mr escobar had some difficulties he was deemed credible and he had some difficulties the only question is whether whether asylum is is the solution for his difficulties and the government's position is that it isn't so the board this isn't as you say spends a lot of time on reka stevens and not a lot of time on on the facts but what the board does do is make a lot of references to the immigration judges analysis and the immigration judge and analyze particularities and social distinction in two judge took some time at the end of the hearing to explain to mr escobar pineda what he was about to do in the decision so i'd like to point the court to  through one twelve it's in that area and the immigration judge absolutely talked about particularities and about social distinction and then again at the end of the hearing the immigration judge was was explaining to mr escobar you know where he was go where he intended to go with the decision that begins on page one ninety seven and goes through pages one ninety nine and on those pages the immigration judge did go into some detail on those two features i can talk about was physical violence and threats of death is that sufficient to kick him out of a social group and to deny him asylum i don't think so i think the social group is just the first if you get the other  unique information the idea of the perpetrators the gang members he also had the license plates information also like to address the fact that this is an old case the country ports is from two thousand and fourteen so it's stale there's a new one in two thousand and seventeen so if anything i would i think you should also be considered for re manned for additional new information for consideration of convention against torture to consider the highly probative is socially recognized as a member of a group and we can revisit was very clear this person testified nope in court and it was a public hearing and she was therefore recognized publicly as being here testify or against the gangs here how how does anybody know the mistruths could help the police because at that night she was police was seen going to him to the house that he was out to give evidence of the for the case that the police visited his house they visit his house that was the second time the first time of the day of the night of the incident he went to a friend's house where that was out and the that's where the police was also out because the car was right in front of the house that was caught on fire the stolen police car so case in matters submitted