our final case of the day is lopez garcia against b her children after being repeatedly contacted by mail from you that her husband was in the united states working and sending back money the calls initially started and the increase in the severity of their threats the bottom own government has demonstrated through the country conditions that it is incapable of protecting maria and her children from persecution and torture pacifically maria was living on as a woman with her children in guatemala was vulnerable there  and one of my own government's inability to protect women living along with their children from persecution and torture and the nd is whether or not the board failed to also apply the proper review to the church and things under article we have a convention against torture again in light of the record evidence with respect to the st issue on the motion to reconsider and also the motion to reopen the facts in this case to merit a little bit of a closer attention when the government know making has been properly i'm sure that what you're now making are the arguments that were originally made in support of the motion for for which no petition for review but that you are respect to the issues of the motion to reopen the issue was properly preserved with respect to the new the new record of it and submitted and the particular social group and looking ahead to well founded relevant as new evidence previously not available and which goes to the question your honor of whether she has a well founded fear future peculation under the ten percent possibility for asylum this was a timely filed outlook ation the new state department records to demonstrate that the issue of from a side has continued and guatemala and that the amala still if this the conditions in the political context your honor were submitted to demonstrate that the situation has not improved in guatemala for women and in particular we have here women who reside along with their children so we do some of this documentation is relevant to the particular social group as well as the next as she was living along with her children and was threatened repeatedly the board of immigration appeals considered all this in rejecting the motion for reconsideration in the motion to reopen because there was no evidence of materially changed conditions which is what the latter would require and and the board held with respect to the motion for reconsideration that it was based essentially on the same arguments that were advanced at the plenary level so what and what about that was an abuse of discretion you're just really arguing the merits your honor the petitioner and her children were previously represented by other counsel below and i do believe that we have presented documentation that as far as the country conditions go demonstrate the situation has worked for women such as  petitioner and her children well and so the board the board disagreed with that review the evidence in disagreed with that and you have to demonstrate that that was a downright unreasonable ruling that more rejected and country conditions continue to be batting guatamala it's not a material change or at least that's how the board viewed th additional evidence having looked at it yes your honor it didn't overlook the additional evidence it didn't refuse to consider the additional evidence just disagrees with you that it reflects a material change in country me please the court i'm susan green for the attorney general i think the court has noted that a key factor in this case is that there was no a petition for review from the underlying removal order thirty two consequences of that and that petitioners failure to take a petition for that original revo order and when as the standard review is different and the other is that the questions on review are different the questions have to do with whether the petitioners father proper motion to reconsider and motion to reopen and i think the answer to those this that the board i am reasonably found that they had not filed motions that satisfied the decide that that would change the result but the fact is that her she has to show that there was something that was related to her particular social groups that was very different and her particular social group is watermelon females living alone with her children in their country as their husbands had migrated to the united states and the fact that there is femicide is not doesn't coincide closely with her group him aside seems to me it's an sexualized murder of women there was nothing at all suggesting that that was the danger that she dressed she had these three telephone calls she never had a confrontation with these callers they'd never followed through even though she was there for months the call started in march she was there or through may of the next year and she never had any confrontation with these colors or they were they never tried to follow through on their threats for those reasons the general evidence about and the violence in her country is not doesn't coincide closely with what was going to happen to her or what she alleged was going to happen to her and the immigration judge and the board franch that she didn't show that she was subject to past persecution because these threats were not immediate and menacing that's well established in the case of this court so i think for those reasons and the board's denial of both of the motions was reasonable and should be this court should deny the petition and if the court has any questions i'd be glad to answer them thank you very much in april two thousand and fourteen which was exactly three months after the rd call came in which the caller threatened not just her but the lives of her children and threatened to kill all of them and the nd point i want to  clear for this court is that the government argues that the issue is whether it was a proper motion and a proper motion to reopen reconsider and these were properly untimely filed motions and they were not numbered barks i just wanted to bring