the morning your honour's i made it clear to the court peter violence unrelated to any kind of social group related to that is the process violation of the outlined in our briefs in terms of what happened before the immigration judge and remarkably as it continued before the board of of cases and both of those cases are genuinely random violence cases someone's property was stolen and you can hear that i was silent someone stole my property you courts probably said there's no nexus between a social group and that the problem is that  not completely in apas it and fighting grappling and embracing that principle the immigration judge lost sight of the fact that the pros say petitioner who only had three years of education and spoke spanish actually articulate crime and seek to have it investigated and prosecuted and as a result are persecuted and that may or may not be a family based relationship it can i mean if you look at him really rebuts and correct off base from this  she sought investigative efforts to prosecute and find the perpetrators of the murder and she and her children were threatened and persecuted for it and family is under the real squeeze a quintessential social group in the circle but there's also another social group here that we dealing with female genital mutilation and gender can be and has been called nice as the social group by the score and so all of those social groups are at wait given the factual testimony that she was offering any error from the be circumstantial that she lives in a country where rampant violence against women is common they don't have to offer outlets to get redressed and her daughter who was five months pregnant with murder and so i think it's implied from the record but how that how there's actually a nexus to either that she's a woman doing this or that it's her daughter so the family has good because let's say my friend who wasn't a family member and  i'm a male and a friend is a male gets murdered and i'm really pushing to get that murder investigated because his friend right you had end up with exactly the same circumstances here whoever whoever didn't like the fact that she was pushing how this investigated wants her to stop investigating not because she's a woman not necessarily because she's the mother of this woman those are the reasons she's doing what you're doing you know but just because they don't want to get caught and so i don't that i i i'm having trouble making that nexus that link between your proposal for groups and what's going on here because i think it could have this could be sure to these really be not motivated by gender or by the relation  of a friend and seeking to have it investigated by the police and the prosecutors and nothing was being done and the moment that guy reported the violence against his friend he started receiving death threats because of what he was doing that would be a proposed social group too so that's the point there were multiple potential social groups in play here and one of th looks like it could be this particular group or social group because you've already mentioned three what is his obligation to say ok i've heard this testimony i've heard the petitioners story and everything and here's how i think it fits what is what is he supposed to do it's you're on i disagree with your premise for this reason due process demands that when a pro se immigrant is in immigration court the i j a actually isn't there to be just the judge who gets the call paulson strikes and just let the person do whatever they want actually extend in a way that's very significant we resubmitted that is before the b h he finally got a lawyer and that boy wants to be i and so i don't have the record i need more time to be i said to bat and what ultimately happened then is the lawyer before counsel record materials to make and brief an appeal for across a woman who's had three years of education and so i think the due process violation illuminates why the proposed social group existed and why needs to be sent back to ascertain this the rd  counsel or gather other information from her home country and so why isn't that enough to get her day in court and secondly exactly what would have been presented to the cia that couldn't be presented because it looked like you couldn't have known that you had a claim based on the fact that if you would be persecuted for investigating the murder of her or her daughter that seems to be the central thing that's been everything how could you not known that it could be another one for everything else w exhibit you admitted into evidence and used against our it was never translated so how could she her mind it produce full information on other legal issues that are germane like relocation of the law and with respect to the gym or got to your specific question about the multiple hearing decision treated as a social as a particular social where did they addressed it what they said is all just a reference to a family there's nothing there that has anything to do with her being persecuted because a family but that has zero actual but i think that he misunderstands that concept discoverer was provided a full and fair and jim you're absolutely correct there were four hearings at each one of those hearings and each notice in it she was told about your ability to counsel to represent her she was told that there were free lawyers available who were there to assist her and the judge the immigration judge who actually does walk through the law the migration judge walks through the claims the immigration judge in fact identified a family group as a potential for group and in the immigration judge's decision says even assuming that she's a member of this group that she didn't  to use the information that he had of the transcripts and judgment by as well as of the information that mister bear already had to raise arguments that he didn't even raise before the immigration judge and so when the board looked at the record and said ok you're now raising arguments the st time in this appeal under this court's precedent it's well established that she's not allowed to do that she has to raise those arguments were the immigration judge and when you look at the record and you look at some these  or and explained exactly what needs what she needed to prove it is her burning it is her burden under the regulations that explain asylum and it's also her burden under the regulations that explain with the removal and the convention against torture here most of his focus was on past persecution she alleged that on known attackers somehow murdered her daughter she never knew who they were and then unknown people continued to message her with rats she reported that to the police but she was never able to establish a nexus that connected that all of those allegations with a reason for doing and it's not enough to say that it was just because it was her daughter in guatemala she also has her husband she has her sons and she has two more daughters who her daughters were able to relocate to a different location there's no evidence in this record to suggest that any other member of her family was targeted or that they suffered from any sorts of criminal activity that she has a lead and in fact it goes to the notion of  persecution if she were to be removed one of the things under the regulations say is that you cannot establish future persecution unless you can also say that it would be she'd be unable to move somewhere else and on this record she explain that she was able to get her daughters out of her town to go live with their ins and that nothing has happened to them there's no evidence in this record to suggest in the world was right in it that she has not established if you're a future persecution if she were to be removed now she was also attacked in december of two thousand and seventeen again unknown assailants and if you take her for her word which the immigration judge he said although he was she provided invasive answers and although her testimony was not sufficiently detailed he didn't credit her as needed and what she said was if you read that as she said that she would act like a known as they were finally finished in september of two thousand and thirteen is comparable given every opportunity possible to quite evidence she was given the in the human rights report the immigration judge discusses that report with her make sure that she has a copy of it actually he starts the hearings and says come back to me at the next hearing and will discuss she was asked by the immigration judge me i rely on this you have any problem with that she said no problem people rely on it and she raised no arguments against counsel talking about people who publicly report crimes and if they're attacked by criminal elements that are unknown or that there's somehow some sort of family group of the immigration judge ness and if you read the record that's simply not the case here the immigration judge looked at the social group and talked about criminal elements that allegedly that she talked about tracking her and the messages that she received and the immigration judge properly considered that as she was required to do  somehow had to turn a blind eye to the level of violence that would it would rise to the level of torture it may well be that the watermelon police had a lot on their hands and didn't do a very good job of messaging this case that does not mean that you can have a social group based on the reporting of crime and that's what the i g didn't address at all and this failing to address issues comes up perfectly with respect to the relocation issue the i g never asked her if she's scared to go back that you go to a different city all the types of open ended notice i'm not sure of counsel said that her the threats that she reported had no nexus and whatnot to her investigative efforts that's not correct the threats that she's that when she reported to the police or prosecutors of the crime that is our session for today if your