i'd like to may i ask you a question about that you shoot your client testified that she and her mother left their home in september of two thousand and seventeen and went to live with a niece stop you on that because the brother's declaration box about specific dates in january and he says on the twenty eight his mother told him about a death threat which caused him on the th on sunday to go s a very stringent substantial evidence standard we have to be compelled to find contrary to what the agency found and if what you say is a possible interpretation but i have difficulty seeing that it is the only reasonable interpretation of the the record and in the absence of that i don't understand how we can overturn the adverse to push further on those letters because neither of them say anything about the mother leaving with your client in september indeed the mother suggesting that there wasn't need deflate until november there's no mention of anything in september and she's back in january and how does that really don't ok let's focus on that november why would there be any reason for her to stay at the end of november the gangs started seizing property if she had in fact last more than two months before with their daughter and hadn't been there your daughter says i don't know for sure what happens after i leave at the end of october but it sure sounds like from the mother's description she's back there in november and that's what they caused her to lose the property the latter well the question is whether the inference is that the irish a group were reasonable because if they were findings themselves are reasonable that counsel i have a question for you about that i'd have just speaking for myself to agree with here that was an reasonable speculation but if there is one valid basis for an adverse question of whether they are your client fled from the gangs are is completely relevant and the timing of that seems important as well to support or not support the claim about the threats that she received and where she received them so i don't understand how it's tangential rosie iran or any early  so in finding the miscreant i hold not credible the agency properly relied on specific instances in the record as required under shrestha st as the agency found mrs courtenay hose testimony regarding the final threats that she received in el salvador and her fleeing from her home in september th teen was inconsistent with the declarations in the record ms corn a host stated that after receiving three sprats in august and september th two thousand and seventeen and she and her mother fled their home moved in with her niece for a month and a half and then she fled to the united states that her mother moved in with her son she then stated on page seven hundred and twenty of the record that neither she or her mother had since returned to the home then during the declarations on the other hand indicate that her mother in fact remained in the home finding that this speculation resolves the inconsistency looking at the record they're looking at the declarations as discussed the decorations indicate that her mother was at the home at least several times in november t and that according to her brother she received a threat on january th two thousand and eighteen and that he came to pick her up the following day on january th and so that declaration show that she was in the house several times and at least living in the house in january t several times in november ok if we look at the language of the declaration so this is on page seventy six out scuse me on her mother's declaration on page seven  of the record she says i'm several occasions she has found these people just meters from her home resting and heavily armed so we know and this was just this in  several times in movember no that does that does excuse me that so we know that this was during the period that in the fall after missing her name how important he says that they fled the home in september and so she says that during this period she saw these game again gang members on several occasions around her home so we know that she was after her home at least several times and then she well i think stay two points i think that importantly she says that on january th two thousand and eighteen she received this threat and it was this threat that forced her to retire ter son's house the declaration does not say anything about her leaving the home in september moving to her niece's house or moving to her son's house in at the end of october as mr burnett hope claims in addition according to miss carne a hose brothers declaration which is on page seven hundred and seventy one of the record he indicates that his mother received a threat on january th and it was because of this threat that the following day on at least several times she was living at the home at least one occasion in january in january th seems it does not compel the finding that she just went home to check and she went back to the home to check on it  courtenay testified the government took many different steps to protect her while she was a police officer as the record shows her supervisor so looking at the country condition evidence in the record we have mixed evidence regarding showing both the continue challenges that el salvador faces in addressing gang violence and in addition the success that the government has had in protecting police officers and the general public from gang violence i would point the court's attention to page three hundred and sixty seven thousand three  of the record this is just this article shows that the government of el salvador has invested heavily with the support of the united states the state department has invested forty eight million dollars in addressing these issues has the f b i has trained eight hundred and fifty five dollars police officers and when this systems and this is according to the state department the salvadorian government with the united states government support has made significant gains in the area of security including reduction in homicides and every other category of violent crime measure one m p the headline of the article you're citing well under the under the standard of unable or unwilling it's not this court has never adopted a standard requiring that the government protect every every individual and instead it refers to serious problems with the justice system and i think if we look at cases where this court has found an inability to protect for instance in a free a in that in that case the the police station had one gun shared by the entire police station and so that's i think that we have to look it's always been seen as a spectrum and here again we have multiple instances in miss corning has own experience as a police officer showing these effort burn and it wasn't until she finally reported the gangs threat skins that she didn't report the games threats until september twenty seven thousand at that point the police did take her report and assigned her a code name to protect her identity and she testified that she had no idea whether there and they investigated because she fled soon thereafter and again that's why the agency looked to these mixed country reports in the judgment for its own here or the agency properly weighed miss corning whose own experience when this mixed evidence in the record we have evidence in addition to this article we have evidence that el salvador officers as well as the river who shows and prison guards and others in law enforcement are being killed in large numbers there doesn't strike me that we're already disabled to protect people in and the agency recognize that the agency recognize that this is an ongoing challenge however the agency also recognized that in recent years due to this investment and to these africa that have been made we are seen  reduction in violent crime and in the homicide rate the article goes on to say that between two thousand and seventeen and two thousand and eighteen there was a ten percent reduction in homicides and so the evidence shows police officers because she indicated that she did not did not resign from the police force the government the agency excuse me found that that was not immutable under a yellow because the status of being a police officer is not an  e quality the government however is not defending that aspect of the agency's decision because under a matter of a b the agency has to look at the entire social group and hear that the agency  not do that it only looked at the aspect relating to her status as a police officer however as we indicated in briefing the court me not reach the issue because the agency adverse credibility finding and un why the government has the option when all we won't respond will make them send it back to do it over again in back the position of already made an argument and you could have been should have responded to and didn't so why is that the agency gives an extra b again the court the court mean that reached those those issues given given the other dispositive bases for for denying that it's thank you counsel i think we really understand your position and you have received