was course per se and he was detained but all but once he was no longer detained and make bond moved to california to meet with his sister then he had he had the ability i'm trying to look at this in show what would have been different if he had actually been asked by it to directly answer the question of what should the church have done right the jets should have for example when he mentioned the various family members that there's an obvious connection to could your family be a social group right and she the judge could have followed up on the pattern of abuse to various family members when he mentioned the are social group and that's one of the main reasons that she and her family members are being targeted and the as a as we briefed even the government has submitted a brief to be a in a case that we can swing to the president because they asked for may have deteriorated in the sense that there are there is no longer a truce between the government and the gangs on the evidence also shows that you know it never never during the time of the troops were as violence against private individuals gangs and so that's because there was no evidence presented at the agency reasonably concluded that they're reopening his proceedings was not warranted that there would be no change in the outcome of his case even considering all of this evidence that he submitted with a motion to ballot continuing threats to the family members and whether they had been as i said to david makes clear specifically asked about his whereabouts and indicating that they were targeting him he needed to do based on the evidence that he was able to submit he got you know it was articles about game violence in el salvador he got a letter from his the mayor of his hometown he got letters from his previous employers he got  letters from documenting or excuse me from his family members and letters documenting injuries that his brothers had my head incurred prior to his hearing so it's not like she was at this hearing it had really no idea what was going on and he was he was  things are a pretty clear given the fact that he does admit that evidence that he didn't participate fully in his hearing but there's nothing that requires a court of the immigration judge to me to explain the intricacies of a son in law for example hospital he's in while he's hospitalized that within days of his being released from the hospital and returned to the neighborhood he's again shot and that while he is over the next couple of year is moving around trying to avoid the gangs continues to get information from family members that the gangs are looking for him and they're closing in on him and to the point he seems now or believes that he sees that activity  say there's no evidence was targeted because of his affiliation with the social group of either soccer players or high high profile individuals who are resisting gang activity situation would be in so here well the petitioner brothers targeted for extortion model on the shooting that happened happened across the street from his home at the home of the neighborhood doctor on there were nothing really to differentiate what happened to the petitioner from just a general hiding violence which unfortunately is very prevalent in our salvador at this time and so based on those two incidents involving the lack of information about  motion to reopen surely with former responses might provided why shouldn't we find here that the situation is closer to those cases where we concluded there wasn't a good process violation o somewhat systematic basis to be a focusing in on nexus and not addressing the question of the contours of a particular social group  i think it's important oh it catches a particular it is of the country conditions goes exactly to acquiescence and i think the judge has asked me this and i didn't answer it completely the first time around which is that's not evidence that he was able to bring to bear on the the first appeal without going through the stack of the motion to reopen to expand the record and demonstrate what was what should have come in with with d this goes back to get this question at the outset and are only seeing that immigration judges are are bound to tell petitioners you need to present more evidence about this claim that the board failed to address and that would require we met but i think there's a bigger issue which the motion treliving documents that  like that which the expert presented he could not have presented himself and so the fact that he didn't know it was necessary to present that because the judge never even explain