section eleven fifty eight i think this court clearly has jurisdiction none of the cases that the government's admitted suggests otherwise the second question of law is whether the agency erred in holding that it was a particular social group was not eligible for a while on a second on the first issue is that whether we have the authority to decide the social group issues that we mean by jurisdiction indeed your honor ok the way i look at this the immigration judge clearly defined and concluded both congress or the committee had any discussion of the meaning of social groups the trouble i have is we could extend that to any band of criminals whether they're drug traffickers or anything once we asked somebody if you call a dog's tail a leg how many legs does a dog have and the person answer five and lincoln said no calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg and trade of the social group you're talking about the trade is that the group provides camaraderie it provides for turning eighty so the taliban would qualify if we had taliban people here saying don't send me back because the current iraqi government will do bad things to me the current afghanistan government will do bad things to me the taliban would qualify al qaeda were qualified you know russian mafia would qualify you know nothing about the taliban i have to admit in terms of social group issue here i would i would think that they don't serve a purely criminal if you look at every word that's been coming out of congress since the one nine hundred sixty s about this kinds of these kinds of groups and all they've done is pass criminal statutes to try to exactly but inherent to the sort of dignity and well being of the human being and i mean i don't i don't understand how your proposed group fits those criteria those group of former gang members who have joined gangs not entirely for criminal purposes but rather for membership for fraternity for protection for power for identity  does that those purposes and by looking at former gang members as opposed to just gang members what you're looking at is whether or not this person can change that that path experienced that past identity and back to my first question is there any regulation of record that's been adopted by the independent of case decisions you know your honor not that i'm aware and is there anything in the congressional record independent of what you've been saying that lays down governor good morning members of the court on the whole theory of the respondent before i get started i wanted to inform the court that the department homeland security has filed with the board a motion to reconsider its decision it's a thermos without opinion to allow the board an opportunity to speak to these issues that we've been discussing in light of the new case law that judge graber discussed with counsel so you know that you and department of homeland security is trying to reopen this case to allow us to allow the board to speak on these issues in the first instance so i assume you're asking us to defer submission on this case until the decision is made not that specifically on because we can what we're asking that you have an agreement with that is the situation here our position is that the serious nonpolitical crime is just as a particularly serious crime a discretionary decision but the question and the question of whether the correct legal standard was applied to answer that question had been applied i think the petitioners argument as i understand it would concede that there's no jurisdiction but i understand the argument to be that the immigration judge simply applied the wrong law as a matter of understanding of the concept of a social group and what you have to show to be in a social group i don't understand why we would have to remain for them to do that again because we don't know if the board affirmed gratian judge's decision that he committed a particular serious now political crime we don't know if the board of armed immigration judges discretionary denial of asylum you talk about this case yes nonpolitical crime issue because there are no standards serious nonpolitical crime standards similar to the different from the serious not political crimes are you familiar with the r t r case that's currently pending and i circuit not you know i'm not you know you should it's the same issue identical nobody's made any request in that case and i'm on the panel to do anything except decide the issue they've come forward they said decide the issue and we plan to send all the sudden your turn that the petitioner fails to show that the record compels inclusion that he would be tortured by the government the facts of this case show that he he's no longer a member of the gang that he used to be a member of  criteria involving social visibility involving particularity which in this case this board did not address so to give the board a chance to address the new case law that's one of the reasons why we're asking the court to send it back again with regard to the torture claim petitioners is getting older every day he's no longer a youth he has gotten rid of his tattoos and the evidence in the record shows that though the police do pursue gang members much of the pursuit is involved with legitimate law enforcement and the fact that he was able to hide his gang membership from his mother undercuts his assertion that he would be visible to the police and would be pursued and tortured on that his hands and his and the government has under his convention against torture claim made the interesting point that he's now no longer eighteen seventeen as he was when he entered the country i'd say let's look at th decision that was a changed circumstance country circumstance this case but the same rationale applies to a person who is aging and the reason why that's most important is because this is a child and children need special protection when they are seeking asylum regardless of above so those characteristics isn't the verdun on a person coming into the country the burden to show that it has qualifications to remain here yes your honor and jose so if the burden is not shown clearly then i take it that the deportation order was proper it's if you have if you find that we did not meet our burden and showing a pro and deportation even though it will mean that he will die when he goes i know but i'm just trying to put the ceiling everything else the burden of proof is yours the burden the burden actually is ours to begin with yes we make certain showings then it switches to them to re