words of this court when the agency has failed to comply with its responsibilities description insist on compliance rather than attempting to supplement its efforts that remained as warranted here on several grounds determine whether ms malice is likely to be singled out for persecution here the agency failed to and here to these binding legal frameworks and interwoven with the legal errors here is recurring procedural  throughout its analysis the immigration judge disregarded the facts in the record and inserted its own speculative views instead so for example the immigration judge determined that the threats issue were vague business mehlis testified the men who killed her husband has a carlos called her and said it was a carlos hadn't been killed because he still had his wife and daughter alive he said that everything that had to do with this dog would disappear and israel has explicitly testified he told me that they would kill me and that tom pitched thirty six of the record this was a direct and explicit death threat there was no addition the immigration judge cherry picked portions of the experts testimony to conclude that that was the cause violence was gratuitous and unpredictable but professor unger's actual testimony was that although the violence may seem unpredictable there's actually a structure to these criminal groups and he testified that in his estimation this malice faces a seventy five to eighty percent likelihood of being harmed or killed if she is returned because one of the well known practices of these criminal groups is the persistent targeting a specific individuals couples and families now for an awful lot of briefing that really are going too far and he is focusing on the fact opposite result is compelled by the facts that are before us and i forget the phrasing or course sometimes used and how much articulation of that fact finding its way car but it's not exhausti so what you do with that standard you have some very legitimate arguments of other ways to look at these facts very compelling too strong a word maybe but very sympathetic facts but what about  wrong foot on the arse proceed with why we are compelled to reach the opposite result of the question and here i would have to make two points st what's required here by the agency by any reviewing body is an accurate consideration of the record and as we've addressed in our briefs and as we're discussing today here the immigration judge fundamentally twisted the expert testimony over the some of the most important facts in the record and inserted his own speculation most notably about why in israel's his son was approached at the school he speculated that it was recruitment efforts on the  testified that the battle at her son to get information to the kids her and so fundamentally before we get to a review of whether there's substantial evidence in the records we need an accurate consideration of what was put forth the proof that she presented to demonstrate her eligibility and here both for the well founded fear and in the past persecution analysis is our position that what's required here is a did know of a review of the legal errors that the immigration judge fundamentally failed to apply the correct legal frameworks and so it's that adequate review that we're seeking here which we believe comes st before we can get into the question of whether substantial evidence shows that she made that claim  immigration judge the agency must apply the correct legal frameworks and so here you know among the epic examples that we have of the baseless speculation that the immigration judge in kishan as i mentioned is the recruitment by the we need to get back to the basics of what's actually in the record and i would note here that the government does not marshal much of an argument of the legal errors committed below in fact much of the government's brief addresses issues that are not even before this court and the parts that are on point are almost fully devoid of the eagle citation and rather merely reiterate the decisions below echoing some of the same errors that the agency committed so i'd like to turn to discussing his more detail the most harm that may reasonably be expected in the future and past persecution ever be used the facts facts of past persecution ever be used or cited or in any way referenced in making it evaluation with regard to the well founded fear it seems like that they're connected at least chronologically they're connected in terms of the nature of the persecution is that not fair that's correct your honor and in fact that's exactly what we're seeking here and what was lacking in the agencies analysis below so in the past persecution analysis here the immigration judge picked out for instance of harm that is malice had suffered personally and consider those in isolation which we believe was a separate to determine whether those a mistake you should have considered more than the four that were considered that were identified and considered for past persecution yes you're with well it wasn't an error for him to consider the four he just should have gone in considered other matters characteristic or belief that the persecutors seeks to overcome so hear from his malice that's her status as the wife of jose carlos who was tortured and killed the nd factor is whether the persecutors are aware of that characteristic or could become aware and there's no doubt the record here that about those locos were aware of her status as his wife the rd and th factors are the crux of the inquiry it's whether the persecutors are capable of punishing that person for those characteristics or beliefs and whether they're inclined to do so and so for the rd and th factors that's where the heart of our concerns lie that the immigration judge completely set aside any increase in the well founded fear context of the harm and threats that were directed to the smallest personally and only looks at the harm of threats to other family members to determine if her fear was subjectively reasonable if the immigration judge had wrapped in the consideration of the harm that she had suffered personally and had taken an accurate view of the terms of the record that would be the context based comprehensive analysis that this court mandates in edouard and that would be in keeping with the motor of the factors that's what's missing are you talking about the rd franc or the  repeatedly called her on that they knew where she lived they knew how to find her they knew how to find her children there pressure in the street as she was leaving her mother in law's house and surrounded her there's no doubt here that they had the means to track her down and issue threats to her and at that capability and then their inclination to do so gets back to why her by her and not someone else and they spoke very clearly to this we have direct evidence in the record that they specifically expressed their motives the head of malice and said your husband is still alive so long as you and your to other remain alive and we're going to kill you and so that is as clear as it gets in terms of expressing the inclination to carry out and i would recall here that the test is the circuit set in or around the monson is whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances was fear of persecution if they were returned to the country and so here we have expert testimony stating clearly that in the experts experience based on the patterns that have already unfolded from this malice and her family she faces a seventy five to eighty percent likelihood of being harmed and the expert expressly said that given the sequence of events that happened already the next accountability and working with police reform to understand that this is a well known practice that about to circus and other criminal organizations and gauge of the targeting of family members in the way that persists and escalates over time so in whether the attorney general's opinion warrants deference by this court now it's our position that consistent with the recent decision by judge angle heard in the pendulous again a case that remained would be appropriate to afford the parties an opportunity to provide go over thirty actually said because a matter really was not briefed no notice was given to the court of st circuit they didn't apply it to apply the law and you just read in the briefing and it's not about to be  holding and it primarily serves to reinforce that the increase into the kid nice ability of a particular social group must be fact intensive and his specific and that's the exact individual review is going to open factual issue persecution analysis but the same flaws that led him to conclude that there was no past persecution regarding those specific death threats applying that in the future persecution i was as well if you look on record page  quoting from the i j a as previously explained the threats miss morales personally received were too vague to qualify as past persecution similarly descriptions of the incidents involving other members of his family lack detail one of the things i would like to address is that there is one point of error about that petitioner has raised that we agree that if the i j a had done would be a legal error so i want to just make sure about the court is clear on that and petitioner the rest of the petitions arguments generally speaking fall under a dispute over the factual characterization whether it's you know for example the petitioner thinks the i j a required her to demonstrate direct proof or motives but again  that the burden on the applicant is to show by a preponderance their eligibility for asylum but it comes to the well founded fear analysis what the applicant is required to show is that they face a reasonable possibility of harm if inquiry is reasonable in this one it's whether visible person in the applicant circumstances would fear return in terms of what the immigration judge said about this in the immigration judge's reasoning  the only case that cited about the standards was shoot versus ashcroft which sets out the withholding standard of fifty one percent standard which is not the correct standard to be applied here and so it's our position that in the context of the legal errors committed by the agency and that citation to the incorrect standard it's simply not clear on this record that the agency applied the correct standard here the counsel for the government stated that the board fact consider incidents in their totality and that the immigration judge was married nearly picking out particular incidents to highlight for discussion but here we know from the record that the immigration judge looking at well founded fear completely set of her husband's torture and she received that recording sent to her from her dead husband cell phone on the day of his funeral about just look us did not make that recording for any purpose other than to intimidate it is malice and they put that recording to its intended use days after they torture her husband to death that consideration did not make its way into the immigration judge's reasoning a well founded fear and as i mentioned the immigration judge in appropriately concluded that the fear or the mother for her targeting it doesn't get much clearer than that and here we have evidence that we have indications that the agency strayed from the correct legal frameworks the agency is this have done the cia has the burden to demonstrate or is required to demonstrate that has provided meaningful consideration of each piece of substantial relevant evidence in the record but we're not asking for here is we're not asking for the agency to delve into the main dish if cataloguing out each piece of evidence that's been presented but where is here we have gaping holes in the analysis and some of the most important facts have not been considered or have been misconstrued that is cause for concern immigration judge dismissed in one sentence and the notion that this arouses threats and harm that she personally suffered were relevant for the well founded fear in created the matter is not going to be increased demands more the immigration judge also gives very light treatment to the fact that this route this was forced to go into hiding and to put her children into hiding as a result of the threats that she and other family members had received and we know this creates analysis in the south of her says gonzalez case that going into hiding is not the end of persecution being forced into hiding does not mean that the persecutors are no longer pursuing the applicant or that the threat has passed in fact here we have clear expert testimony that the threats