bar yes ron how does it how does it change your argument or shape your argument well you're on a present course persecution would not have occurred but women without the protection of their parents the notion of there being a longer form of this they included persecution at all was simply an error ok the record compels you understand the present more th young woman without protection of her parents never happened the parents were in country it's never happened in fact one persecutor it will will record over so a kind of nonchalance of just no fear of reprisal whatsoever when years later cynthia and asked her if she remember what had happened between the two of them point here is that when it comes to protecting women and girls guatemala is a failed state since these personal experiences are familial experiences and the state solution to the problem is not what we would expect from a minor child so traumatized further france to riga stands in a long line of sexual orientation basically a social group that themselves use well in or social group involved gay men who present in part as women so in essence the remedy for the present case would be to afford the same understanding that was afforded in bring us for readers to the present petition the violence is the same for the same purpose we have direct evidence of the violence and bring to us the father between beating same to bring is act like a boy you are not a woman to maintain his understanding of strata by gender roles and when these parents were not in country when they were not available that made cynthia present more a member of the particular social group of young women without the protection of their pants parents well if you s unwilling to apply the holding of bring us for vegas to the present case the error was the difference toward using the in the analytical framework under undergone and bring is in essence what the immigration judge found to be credible despite and young age and the country conditions reports which provide objective evidence that further bulls turns into credible testimony yes or no so the bar on your honor mentioned earlier with  rape and attempted rape and then she was fourteen with the death so how does that factor into the analysis is that whether she was obligated to report to the police i'm sober under the cat consideration because it is trying to protect the tensioners from sure which often happens at the hands of government there is no reporting requirement which the court also again reiterated in bring us richard rodriguez so despite the fact that she did not tell anyone because she was still afraid which she describes  her credible testimony question the fact is that all we can expect a ten year old girl whose family members have had really negative experiences reporting violent incidents is to the police such as we can expect her herself to go ahead and tell the police when she's the improper standard they do not use the aggregated analysis where the at best each force of torture cumulatively and then effect as to the substantial evidence they also failed to consider record of and that is really important but then if they fail to consider her credible to have testimony despite being deemed credible to be a concluded that the testimony was speculative however again this is an error because her testimony is backed up by the finding of credibility which means we must take it as record evidence as well as the in court would consider that we that's all we have to this point thank you very much thank you and now we hear from the government happened thats it it's nasty it's malicious but how does in any way when a criminal goes to a victim of any crime as you remember i have what does that tell us about motive nothing heart that it would be a fine argue for petition represented to the agency for then we need to look at that is the appeal brief to the board the agency the immigration judge specifically quoted that section exactly  aggregate deals with the likelihood of torture but when we look at the age of the ascension of the agency in infant died because of the likelihood there's two requirements likelihood and acquiescence the agency talked about acquiescence so potential argument simply misses the market has no relevance to the agency k where in the country reports of this show that the government's unwilling or unable to control crime or urge childhood rape going to addicts that compels reversal that's what the picture has later to ask about their previous tryst three only when the parents were gone there before the incidents occur for he's always instance occurred in the home harm the government lawyer at the time on page one hundred and thirty one dollars of the record did not respond with any conversations on circularity or or missing the harm in evidence and is certainly the argument that was made a mis parsing of the record in essence the b a s understanding of circularity in this is the problem not the evidence itself the government just a minute or two ago that you have to use the record as it is good for you between the harm and the p s g so even with the understanding from the as we know so that even mentioning at all the persecution is not a poison pill we're still left with the fact there was no circularity present in this case none of the b i just misunderstood that in the governor's misunderstanding now ok