particular social groups that is salvador in males between the ages of fifteen and twenty nine and salvadorian males between the ages of fifteen and twenty nine who refused to join the m s thirteen again there are three issues presented so with respect to this rd question whether remand is required based on your case all this issue has not been addressed in the briefing after the board issued to determination on the question of a particular social group there was a presidential decision issued by the attorney general and matter be addressing the question of claims based on persecution you know past persecution or fear a future where you should and by gang members and that the government a person's home countries government was unwilling or unable to protect them from those remitted for the border to address this issue in the st instance based on this new case law this new case bar have not been a addressed in this specific case and i think at the very least the matter should be law with respect to impermissible fact finding and i would draw the court's attention to page five of the for the record the rd page or the board of immigration appeals decision where the board addressed the background materials that were not addressed by the immigration judge there to full paragraphs where the board specifically addresses the background materials relating to fears of persecution on account of refusals to join gang that the particular social group that were alleged or argued before the immigration judge and none of those arguments were addressed by the immigration judge none of the background materials addressed this background material that hadn't been addressed by immigration judge should have been addressed then the proper instance based on the regulation this court's precedent board's precedent should have been to on the matter back to the ration judge for addressing in the st instance instead the board chose to address each specific quote that they raised each specific  immigration judge say at page eight of his opinion that quote there is no indication on the record that the gang members who recruited respondent had or will have any motives other than increasing the size and influence of their gang yes your honor he does now i making eyes that was said in the context of a discussion about imputed political opinion but why isn't that fact finding nonetheless that the v a could apply to any particular social group you want to suggest whether it's you know young salvadoran males who refused to join gangs or just plain young silva during mel's the immigration judge didn't he make a finding that is no evidence in the record of any motive other than essentially criminal motives honor because there's a difference between political opinion and particular social group i get i get that i understand that but this wasn't a fact finding that it wasn't political opinion it isn't a fact finding its  finding that there's no evidence of any record any motive other than increasing the size and influence of their gang so why doesn't that apply to all groupings or all rationales for why law that might be applicable and again it's unclear which is precisely the point because it's unclear if he's exclusively referring to clinical opinion or awesome corporation social group whether or not the matter should be specific issue particularly where a matter of maybe does distinguish those two issues secondly the fact that he's referring to there is no indication of on the the immigration judge didn't consider the background materials the board cited to them ok i think i understand your and sucked the other question i have relates to your argument about a b and what concerns me is this wasn't raised in the briefing as you say but it also wasn't much raised in your argument in the sense that you said well there's this new case in some other situation this court  remanded to reconsider a case in light of a no i haven't read a b in connection with this case because i didn't realize it's going to come up my recollection of it was but by and large made life harder for applicants for asylum and i'm just wondering if you could at least give us some clue as to why you think that what was said in that case is helpful to your client in some way that it would be useful to have the agency addressed that case i will be very frank matter of a b certainly made things more difficult well there's new authority and so it would make sense to ask the agency to address the new authority and it mission even have referred to whether that case is good or bad for immigrants generally the question is just don't you have to tell us something about why there's some reason to think that a rematch and to consider this case in the light of that decision of the attorney general would somehow make a difference or that that decision changes the law in a way that undermines what the agency did in this case absolutely honor and and that's why i case that involves asylum and gangs which was decided before that decision needs to be sent back to the agency is that would we implied or said in scarlet no no i  i believe jamaica i think that based on the claim of unwilling and unable to control the gangs and possible cooperation with the gangs based on the evidence so that we cite in our  background materials in our briefing that in this specific case it would require remand i don't think it would require a universal across the board remand for every single would would start with the very fact that he was targeted that he was found credible and so for the purposes of this question for you his testimony is to preserve it to be true and therefore  we have to accept as a matter of the record that he was in fact targeted and so whether or not he is aware of other individuals being targeted would not impact whether or not he was specifically targeted and then nd i would draw the court's attention to the background materials which were accepted by the immigration judge in the board that individuals in similary circumstance and similar circumstances  thank you council i have a couple of questions going to the state of the record my understanding is that your client is abandon any claims under the convention against torture that right that is correct or yes ok and also to just to confirm you're not arguing not appeal that he was me ok yes please the court my name is julia tyler and i represent the attorney general in this case your honour's petitioner claims in this case that the board erred by conducting impermissible fact finding  titular claims that the board searched the record to draw its own inferences from evidence that was ignored allegedly by the immigration judge and then relied on those facts will findings to conclude that that has failed  exhaustively discussed that the immigration judge specifically referenced the background evidence that got them out of offers on country page issues in el salvador and specifically referenced in that information as reflecting high level of the crime and violence in el salvador at page seventy four of the record we all know the case law is clear and eggs are just not required nor did the board have to search the record to draw inferences from the from the background evidence the board was responding to gal democrat argument on appeal that his evidence could only mean one thing that he was targeted on account of his membership in a piece of salvadorian male age did not find any different back from the immigration judge in getting down this case it agreed with the immigration judge that cal damage with a victim of crime perpetrated by gang members who wish to increase their wealth and inf seventy eight of the record the immigration judge found there was no indication on the record that the gang members who recruited responded had any motive other than increasing the size and influence of their gang just to highlight a few other comment that it compared to this one where the applicant had been a victim of gang violence noting that telegram as was not protected on any with not targeted i'm sorry on any protected basis but suffered from the gangs criminal efforts to sustain enterprise in the area citing anything and the integration tragic knowledge that this is not a blanket rejection the factual scenarios and ball taking but found that tell them it could not distinguish this case from these court precedent the court makes quite clear that the regulation of a t f are one point once there is there are three point one three four there's not restrict the board's ability to reach out to valuate evidence that previously been obtained by the immigration judge in that case the court found that the regulation was intended to restrict the introduction and consideration of new evidence and proceedings before the court but not the reevaluation of evidence obtained by the immigration judge previously wallace this court found that a review of the fact to a record which is what the board did here does not automatically convert determination as to whether a petition or warrants release into improper fact finding what the board did here was it reviewed the see any twenty eight day on matter of l a baby i did not see a twenty eight day on this case that he's raising but i do feel comfortable saying having reviewed matter of a baby that it has no impact on the on this case there is no reason to remain and because it and the reason is because matter of a b simply affirms the board's decision in matter of l e a on the issue of nexus and simply reiterate that in mischaracterization in the opening brief mr cowles and i said that he felt that perhaps he was targeted by the gang members because maybe perhaps because i'm young and he said i think that the gangs are able to manipulate young kids you never said anything about the dorrian men and he certainly never said anything about salvadorean men between the ages of fifteen and he said that young kids they knew that he was living alone with his grandparents and then been testimony before the immigration judge he said he didn't know why you could argue that he only speculated since on the young perhaps then he didn't know anyone he refuted the notion as he raised such narrow that he didn't know anyone else who had been targeted so he wouldn't know and he would have no reason to know why they were threatening any other young individual where he didn't see any of them actually mention the petitioner and then when the court require particularized evidence beyond general country conditions to support a fear based claim so even if any even if the background evidence  overcome damage his own direct testimony that he didn't know why he was targeted but he assumed that it was because he was a young kid who lived with a grandparent this background evidence does not prove nexus in this case in fact it's not even arguably relevant to nexus in this case it is relevant to social distinction with regard to cognize ability which the board did not even reach so it is true that this evidence shows that fifteen to twenty nine year olds have the highest bank comprise the bulk of both victims and the perpetrators of violence in central america so what the board was saying and i think we can easily be concluded is that with evidence shows that there are many gang members that between the ages of twenty nine dollars there's a lot of interest gang violence which could crop which would lead in a lot of the high homicide rate and also that there are sort of you know running around in the same circles which would cause them to become immigration judge failed to make bail to make fact finding that required further further review and with that i will take your question thank you very much  raised two different social groups one just young men from fifteen to twenty nine and the other young men fifteen to twenty nine who refused gang membership  of the record or not i think i think it is i think it is a fair reading that he raised two groups i would just highlight for you your honor about that mr gum damage did not make that argument that that considering that other group in the st instance was permissible fact finding on appeal to the court so i would argue that it was waived and secondly he never filed a motion to remain and arguing that the immigration judge failed to consider one if  social group i would also say that there are substantial overlap between the two groups and far from being refined as a group that he is identifying and highlighted before the board was a broader group and i don't think that remain and the immigration judge was necessary because the board was able to look at the evidence that he was highlighting and found that it did not undermine the immigration judges findings that there was nothing else at work other than criminal gang  permissible fact finding by seemingly selecting from among conflicting imprints is here well thank you for thank you for the question that that's very interesting i think the important thing here is not to think about the evidence that w submitted as proving one thing or another what what because i just because i just don't see this evidence that way if you look at the charts in the graph then usa id and the  law the law is exceptionally broad it was there to to to protect men and women and and the elderly and really all all people in el salvador to to create educational  to his situation on that particular those particular days and his particular town based on evidence that simply shows that fifteen to twenty nine year old in el salvador males are more likely to be killed not targeted by getting killed these are homicides and there are articles that talk about targeting but again we're not talking about two conflicting versions of how this evidence can be established the evidence shows what the evidence showed is homicide among us covered or in males between fifteen to twenty nine and what the board did which is completely good keeping with the regulations and heating but this court president was determined whether or not the evidence that he would highlighting undermine the immigration judges finding fact finding a next and it found that it did not pages eighteen to twenty five where that is an entire section of our briefing that we argue which was also argued before the b i a and therefore has been properly argued before