that word and that she had failed to establish that what the model of government was unable or unwilling to protect are the at this year's file a timely appeal to the board of immigration appeals in the water reminded for two reasons  you know about the case you cited it that that's an element i mean the the i has recognized married women that can't leave a relationship because of the threat of domestic violence and i just have been wondering ever since i read about this case i mean why you wouldn't say her particular social group is you know being a woman  after after the board decided this case the attorney general overrule matter of if they are so yeah but he had to window of opportunity you know to help this woman i you know i mean we can never know all the factors that go into how a lawyer chooses to argue their case but you know matter of a b when in existence or when you took the position that you d particular such a group can not be defined by the persecution that the members are subject to what precedents that  married women who were and relationships that they couldn't leave because of abuse i mean it doesn't seem like much of a leap to get from married women to women who are in a domestic gender and also the fact that nationality what amount of women the fact that they are also in domestic relationships would in our view former spouse person with whom the victim shares a child income one person who is cohabit thing with or who have lived within the past but i mean one from the point of view of the immigration authorities i mean if there's a  lovely family relations that the husband and wife just don't happen to be married i mean why would that domestic relations in the domestic partnership  appropriate for a particular social group i mean i just can't understand why you don't and the fact which she would knowledge that your client was was in an abusive domestic relations she was  and we just we just under understand the current state of the law to not can see there a particular social group defined soley by the fact that they are being persecuted because it's circular  very same reasoning apply to your client i mean our our position is that it does we did not we did not include the particular  social group and a c r g and i'm saying it backwards sorry you had had abuse in there i mean i just can't i'm just not following you i've argued before that as a matter of fact all asylum applicants were able to leave at some point otherwise they would not be here apply for asylum had they not been able to leave so that's another argument against your client mr let's we've kept your office busy this week everybody's been back and forth to atlanta i guess well it's our pleasure to be your own really really appreciate you being here we've had immigration cases every day in it's been helpful to us to hear from your office glad to hear that thank you your honor may please the court alexander lose for the government in this case your honour's this case presents three issues the st is the cognizant building of mr various proposed particular social group which she defined as guatemalan women in domestic relationships the nd is whether the absence of such cognise ability also rendered mr rivera ineligible for what's called humanitarian asylum but as we noted in a rule twenty eight j letter we filed last week in the interval between briefing and today's argument that issue has been on account of any protected ground articulated immigration nationality act now your honour's with respect to that except for that last issue because it relates to a separate asylum claim the court can resolve the entire case with one determination which is th record doesn't compel the conclusion that the group mr verite defined was showed by the evidence she presented to be particular within the context of guatemalan society i i mean i guess some of my feelings about this are pretty trans group that she could qualify for tried to give her another chance in senate back so that she could articulate one that she she did fit and you know we just got the same articulation of the particular social group that they had before they were a man and so my question is you know does she have any recourse at this point assuming for me that a domestic partnership  with a woman from guatemala who can't leave because of abuse is a particular social group does she have any remedy at this point you are unfortunately no the agency the decision that's on review today that the agency issued it's pretty simple that guatemalan women in domestic relationships is not legally cognizable so that's the issue that's before the court for a decision on the record pretty clearly supports that holding so there's no way she can fix it to your knowledge well your honor i i don't think there's anything to fix and i think hovering in the background here is you're well i mean just assume from a that if the if the particular social group had been correctly articulated it you know just except that for me but but but it wasn't could have been but wasn't is there anything at this point that she can continue your  afraid i have to take issue with the premise of your question but i mean i don't know we can ask hypotheticals trust me others are typing out of course you can't well assuming the part i'm stumbling on is your honour's phrasing that if the group had been correctly articulated mr barrett had two opportunities to articulate no no i'm not arguing with any of that i'm but you're saying if hypothetically there were some cognizable group out there that she could have articulated but she didn't is there anything the court could do now is that  or that she can do terms of a motion to reopen or anything like that well she's certainly free to file a motion to reopen or reconsider but i certainly would if he's taller ones i could see some problems with the agency granting that i think that there would be probably be meritless if it were along the lines you are proposed this would have to but i mean would it be timely no your honor a motion to reopen has to be filed within ninety days of the board's decision here was issued april of last year so we're well past that point so it have to be based on changed circumstances in the country of origin and i'm not sure what showing mr varick make on that point but again it's hard to imagine but your honor if i  could i want to dress what i think is in the background of your question i think it's the question you asked my brother the bar a moment ago about a r c g and why you didn't define the group based on domestic violence opposing counsel is correct that that group would not have been co because it would have been permissibly circular the board said that matter of ca and this court itself upheld that decision and castillo arias too and that holding makes sense the whole point of a particular social group is that when an attacker chooses their victim when they single out this particular victim for persecution they have an animus against some characteristic of that person that's why they chose them to try to overcome some quality that defines a particular social group that that person is at but if the proposed equality is being a victim of domestic violence that essentially is claiming that the attacker targeted the victim for domestic violence because of domestic violence and cause has to proceed affect the motive can create the motive as to pre the conduct so that same domestic violence can't be the basis for itself and so at mr also you know was was correct to refrain from phrasing his group in that way and furthermore your honour's i would note that against mistrust you point out r c t has been overruled and one of only know you can your honor and i'm certainly not suggesting that i just want to step outside a little bit to answer the question that your honor was asking i just don't want to leave any confusion on that point your honour's in this case the group that mr actually articulated closing argument and argument and the board even in the briefs of this court we don't see an explanation of what what i'm on women in domestic relationships means that mean people who are married people who are in a relationship of equal commitment and dedication but who aren't married people who are not living together but they are in such a relationship people are living together but they're just relatives they're not in a romantic relationship we just don't know there's no answer in the record to that question and so there are no outer limits nments on particularities social distinction is still also not shown by this record because there's no showing that law were brought on society makes meaningful distinctions just based on the fact of someone having entered into a domestic relationship that on its own is not enough to define the group so mr vera correctly followed the board's pressman this court's precedent by refraining from defining her group based purely on domestic violence but unfortunately the group that she did define is not supported by this record and that's certainly in some ways an unpalatable result your honour's i understand but is this court acknowledged this the phrase particular social group is not meant to be a catchall there are going to be some petitioners who have suffered past persecution as mr bear as and who understood who undeniably deserve our compassion but they can't connect the harm they've suffered to their race their religion their nationality or their political opinion and then particular social group seems like an invitation but not every form of persecution is going to be able to be connected to a cognizable particular social group is the board in this court of define that term and that's the position mr vera find yourself  and the opportunity to make a showing of other serious harm required that the petitioner already be a refugee which means they've suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground and as we just discussed mr rivera failed to meet that  to your knowledge your honor i'm not aware of that my knowledge of the facts of the case is limited to what's in the sort of fight of mr record for me john c and i think with that agency shows is that she reported  incident of domestic abuse in the sheriff's office responded and she asserted that that resulted in her partner being removed but but if she if she did cooperate with the authorities would she be eligible for a visa i can't say your honor i understand the question but that's a determination that united states citizenship and immigration services would have to make and i can't preempt their reasoning about i don't even know if an application like that has been filed assuming it has i don't know what's in it out and so all that's left is whether that person would harm her in guatemala on account of a protected ground the only motive that the record even suggest for this person is that he would seek to harm her because she was involved in his removal and again whether or not that's true that's just the basis she believes would motivate any future harm and that's not a protective ground it's not one of the five protected grounds in the refugee definition so is there any further questions from or will not be able to control in and based on the evidence in the record we would respectfully submit that the respondent refugee specifically whether the watermelon government can protect the respondent yet your time is up so if you could one that's me right thank you