sessions in that case this court in monish the b a a for applying an excessively narrow interpretation of facts relevant to the statutory nexus requirement that failed to account for the intertwined reasons why an asylum seeker might face persecution petitioners did not oppose that remained request and indeed hoped that the board would follow this court's guidance and reach the conclusion the record in this case compels that miss miss o status as an unmarried mother was one central reason for the threats and extortion she faced at the hands of barrio eighteen but contrary to the remained requests made before this court when this case returned to the board the government told the board th cruise had no bearing whatsoever on petitioners case accordingly the board did not adhere to this court's guidance as a government now acknowledges in that its second opinion in this case the board again failed to appreciate the legal in part of the evidence petitioners presented back in this court and the government again reversed course asking for another remain and rather than defending the board's decision the government continued to press its remained argument in its merits brief going as far as to tell this court that it could not defend the board's decision without considering evidence the board had overlooked notwithstanding that extraordinary concession in its merits briefing just days ago the government backtracked for a third or fourth time telling this court in a submission of supplemental authority that quote the board's nexus reasoning in this case is consistent with past board and judicial precedent and the court should uphold the board's decision as written i walk through this lengthy procedural history to underscore the importance of this court's review in this case this court has stated that those who flee persecution and seek refuge under our laws have the right to know that evidence they present of mistreatment in their homeland will be fairly considered and weighed by those who decide their fates fischer's were denied that right because of the board's failure to recognize legal import of the evidence they presented and because of the government's unwillingness or inability to maintain a consistent position regarding their claims without this court's guidance petitioners will continue to be denied a fair opportunity to present their claims rather than to see to the government's remained request this court should address petitioners claims on their merits and find i'm entitled to relief turning first to the nexus requirement the evidence in this case  that any reasonable adjudicator would find the missile or is a lot of us a status as an unmarried mother living under the rule of gangs was one central reason why she and not another person was targeted it's important to recognize that the record in this case is before she became single she lived for years with her husband and walked through the same neighborhood where she was also at least right and then extorted with her husband facing no threat her sister in law who is married and living in the same neighborhood and in fact in the exact same house was never threatened by the gang when ms alvarez lottos was extorted by the gang member known as shooter he made specific reference to her gender and to her daughter telling her we know you know what we do to women and making references to her daughter being raped and murdered in front of her that direct evidence is corroborated by the testimony for expert witnesses who testified that the absence of a dominant private dominant protective male in a woman's life in these gang infested neighborhoods of hunter s predicts violence against women moreover the gang would be compelled to make a graphic public example of mr lagos in order to show their dominance against women how is that the stink from the the unfortunate fact of central and south american gangs proclivity for violence across the board if they don't get their way your honor as this court has noted the fact that there is widespread violence in central america does not obviate the possibility that anyone asylum seeker was persecuted on account of a protected ground in this case and what this court has said is if if a protected  status makes you a particular target if you're if if you're more likely or if you're if you're singled out for greater persecution on account of a protected ground that is sufficient to meet the nexus requirement that's exactly what we have here and i'm not suggesting that it's a simple it's a simple issue of vulnerability that's certainly part of it but the targeting of single mothers in wonder as is based on the gangs the gangs desire to dominate the population as part of their political strategy in a sense so it's not just that her status makes her vulnerable and it's certainly not just that everybody is susceptible to gang violence goes was specifically targeted because she was a single mother both both those in order to explo vulnerability and to demonstrate the gangs dominance over women in particular were one of the issues in this case is that the r j used to be as well the sume and the existence of a protected social group or a legitimate social group for purposes of that decision so for that reason the issue of whether her particular social group is cognizable is before this court the government does not offer any defense of the immigration judges analysis on that score and in fact the first time this case came before the court the government expressly conceded that it could not defend the immigration judge's decision on particular social group because it was legally erroneous so while well the issue is before the court and i believe this court can and should reverse the immigration judge opinion because her particular social group is immutable particular and socially distinct i do not believe that this court can affirm on the ground that her particular social group is not because the immigration judges analysis on that score is immutability she is a woman she's a parent and she's unmarried and i don't think there's any doubt that those characteristics are immutable such that one should not be required to change them with respect particularities the immigration judges error in addition to  finding that the group is defined by persecution which it isn't the immigration judges error with respect to particulary was determining that the group was too large that's not the meaning of particulary the question is whether there are specific benchmarks  that one can determine who is in and who is out whether one is married or unmarried is a very there is a very clear line delineating that whether one is a parent there is a very clear line delineating that and as that the record shows whether one is living under the rule of gangs or living under the that gets back to the point of just how prevalent these gangs are right so can the argument be that virtually everyone is living on the rule king's i don't think it's true that every square inch of hundred us is under the rule of being such the civilian authorities have no power as they do in this neighborhood i'm not an expert and i wouldn't i wouldn't swear to that but even if that were the case it doesn't change the fact that you know who is and who isn't it just means that everyone is but again the question of breath is not the group need not be small in order to be particular it can be large as long as it's clearly defined and even taking it taking your honour's point that everyone lives under the rule of gangs and under as not everyone is met not everyone is unmarried not everyone is unmarried with a child moving to social r that was also a legal error the group is socially distinct and this goes back to this court's decision and where a group is targeted for more severe persecution is evidence of social distinction and just for the same reasons i've just described with respect to the nexus test  that standard is met here as well can't you a question and i i totally understand the reluctance around an additional remained but when it comes to this particular social group holding i mean the i actually  read the the board review slightly differently i thought the board was not really passing on this and relying exclusively on the nexus point and if that's true i mean the ordinary re mandrel would certainly suggest that and particularly a mock ounces a particular social group that's a tricky complicated thing and you'd want the agency to go first on that i mean isn't that something on which putting to one side nexus isn't that something on which remained seems pretty appropriate you honor i do think and i do think that this court has court has the authority to decide it based on the fact that the board if adopted and affirmed and that's clear in the first board opinion at page one forty five which puts both both decisions before this court i agree with you that the second decision is a little a little less clear and in fact i think it's a mischaracterization of the first decision where the board says we didn't decide that in fact they did by adopting an affirming again because the standard is clear i would ask this court to decide i think that the question of legal cognize ability based on a particular audience social distinction is quite clear if this court felt it was appropriate to remind i certainly agree with you that it is less defined in the record less and less addressed in the record than the issue of nexus which has been repeatedly analyzed by the board i wonder is there anything because i i thought your recitation of the procedural history of this case was compelling and i am concerned that the government i guess opposed to stay motion recently  if we felt compelled to remain and under the ordinary remained rule could we do something like maintain jurisdiction over the appeal and issue a stay in eight of our jurisdiction just to make sure that things sort of stay frozen while we let the agency a one two three fourth chance at this case you're talking about a stay of removal even if the board even if the board doesn't deny her claim again i'm not of any i'm not aware of any reason why this court could not do that i would just suggest that in repeated decisions where the board has misapplied the next standard this court has evaluated the evidence on the record where it is unchallenged and undisputed and has come to the conclusion that no reasonable adjudicator could find anything but one side the nexus issue for a minute but if we felt compelled to remain on the particular social group question i'm just wondering if there is a way to both sort of follow or normal ordinary remain and rule on that issue and at the same time not open the door to  some of the things that you were concerned about yes your honor again i'm not aware of any reason why this court could not maintain jurisdiction such that she would be the government be foreclosed from opposing her right to stay in this country pending the sport's final review and you're are you are correct the first time the board denied her claim and she came to this court and sought a stay the government did not oppose it the second time the government did oppose the stay and then of course turned around and said he could no longer defend the board's decision so i think it's very telling that having  as the board if the government had its way petitioners would be one hundred s right now notwithstanding the fact that the government cannot defend a decision that would have put them there if there are no further questions i'll reserve the balance of my time thank you count  maintain that the court can and should affirm the board's decision in this case as it's written based on the facts of the nexus board found that there was  based nature of the threats against her or the expert testimony that as a unmarried mother she would be at a much higher risk is that what your brief says well the we felt that the board needed to address specific evidence of experts just expert witnesses in order to determine whether or not a mixed mode of analysis was necessary and we were disappointed that the board didn't go as far as we would have liked to  discuss whether a mixed mode of analysis was necessary however with the board decided in this case is that there was no but that was that a mixed mode of an analysis was not necessary because the sole motivation for  his decision how can that be in the face of the testimony the summary of the statements by chou to regarding her status as a woman and what will that work gangs do to women well if you do if you take a look at what happened the first time  approached ms alvarez lago he asked her for money he said how's your daughter give me two thousand and one pyrus she went back and got the money then he came back and asked for ten thousand and one pyrus and she balked at that but  then he threatened her the fact that she is a single mother and that he knew about it was not a motive it was a tool his note of wish to get money as you recognize the motive of the gangs in central america is to get money somebody right give me your money or a burn your house down now does that mean that i that i am persecuting on account of being a homeowner now i'm using your house as a tool to get the money that i want evidence in the record is that the gang extorts everybody not just single moms but taxi drivers and businesses money was first last and the only thing the other has no record is also that women are in particular even more vulnerable than the general population because of their status as in this case  unmarried mothers that's what she testified to that's what the experts suggested so how did the board deal with that happens with the board notes that the that yes the women are more vulnerable but what's going on here they're more vulnerable to extortion what's going on here is extortion the board says yes we understand the expert says women are more vulnerable but what they're really more vulnerable to is extortion where do i find that the boards well what i what i meant to say your honor is that the board recognized it first then a second decision that the primary motivation of the gang was to get money and i'm just so confuse your own brief says it would be improper to defend  discussing all of this argument says we can't rely on it under general because the board didn't rely on it so we have to remain in this case to the board so that the board can consider this evidence in the first instance what is it that changed between the filing of this brief in your argument today well your honor the court tonight our motion to remain and and that's our position as it has been since the beginning of the result in the outcome in this case is correct so with the understanding that we may run afoul of china in making these arguments our position is that this case that the existence of a protected ground and its and its role in threat or an extortion isn't necessarily compelling evidence that that protected ground was the reason that the threat was made  jurisprudence and the use of as i interpret it in a particular social group jurisprudence and the use of asylum as it is a tool for obtaining protection from crime is getting overbroad and i think that the the i recall the  ring opinion says that the p s g concept is losing its rigor but again we don't think the court even needs to get to p s g here the board has been very clear from the beginning that this case is about street crime in a very violent part of the country and to try to shoehorn it into a the asylum laws using a particular social group or even a political opinion is not what the asylum laws were meant to  flits large swaths of honduras and all of central america in fact and the whole that ms alvarez lagos the warrants of merit of asylum in this case would necessarily mean that virtually every single mother in honduras would likewise be worthy of asylum we're not blind to the notion that the violence and the conditions in honduras are horrible we know that but our duty is to use is to apply the law for its intended purpose and we think the board's decision here when it's when it looked at the evidence before it it to concluded that there was no that the fact that ms alvarez lagos was a single mom was not a motive but it was a means to the end in the end its beginning the middle at the end at the terminations of the encounter was one thing and that was money which is common in central america this you question about the torture the cat yes ma'am claim i'm not the evidence supporting the ages finding that she hasn't shown a sufficient likelihood of mistreatment because all the a says about this i mean the i j a announces the standard you can't just spring string together a lot of speculation but there's no discussion of the evidence and there is her right her credit a testimony that they threatened to kill her is the evidence that they're looking for her now and then there's the expert testimony that of course i'm looking for her now and if she goes back they'll kill her so so what is what is a substantial evidence that supports the finding that there is not a likelihood of torture that's that's a difficult question to answer your honor i can see the court's reservation about that however another part of the equation for cat protection is acquiescence acquiescence is it your position that either the i j a or the b i a considered the expert testimony on the links between the police and the gang or petitioners own testimony regarding police collaboration with the gang in on he says that we have considered every piece of evidence whether we mentioned earlier that the i g actually discusses this or general country conditions right there's nothing about either the expert testimony or her evidence about her neighborhood well as i recall the i j a spent couple  and it's just that we've considered the general country conditions as widespread violence they wonder and government is unable to contain the problem and that generalized reporting doesn't establish the case period well one of the  i don't mean to run you around i'm as it looks to me like anyone who's actually addressed the evidence of acquiescence in this case i believe that it was either the i j a or they're in the for sport decision where they mentioned that she had failed to make a police a police report and had failed to show that the police would actually acquiesce in her torture rape and her argument is i didn't make a police report because i was told that if i reported it to the police the gangs would find out right away so that's actually her affirmative evidence  honduras the government is taking steps to combat gang violence and the mere fact that the government isn't always successful does not mean that the government doesn't fact or would in fact acquiesce in torture in this case acquiesce in torture and so and it's a distinct concept from a neighbor or unwilling and in that respect i must say that i page thirty eight of our brief  the crust and valid darrius case which which does mention unable or unwilling and that is not correct that the standard for torture is acquiescence and unable or unwilling are concepts that are charge and there's no government per se what about the she would have to show that a government official would breach their duty turn a blind eye to protecting her against torture  without going to the police and in the presence of a nation a national effort to fight gangs she hasn't met that burden yet you're saying that if if if a petitioners entire claim is that in my neighborhood the police are working hand in glove with the gangs can't succeed unless she's prepared to go to the police with her complaint first have we know that's a that's not what i'm saying and i'm just saying that the facts of this case is not that that the police are working hand in glove with that but that's her she's got testimony to that effect right and she has the i mean it's sound i'm not if this is not the governor the government's position is not that you must always report to the police as part of a claim that the police will kill you if you report to the police but that's not that's not a claim that you must always but given the fact that she didn't in this case and given the country conditions evidence we felt we say that there's no compelling evidence that she's met her frustrating for us we we we amended the first time we wanted the board to to use squarely to confront the severance but never along the way have we ever deviated from our position that the result was proper in this case this case is common street crime and it's the type of misery that inflicts inflicted upon everybody in central america it's not the type of harm that asylum withholding were or were meant to protect against but you know you get some justice just just just a couple sentences to say this is why this is not a mixed motive case this is why this and that and it this case is not a mix of a lot of case that's our that's our position and fortune we didn't get that and so we're in the position now of having to defend the outcome which i mean i i would be very interested in your opinion is there any chance you'll get it on remained or i mean what's going on here do you have the some level of confidence that if we send this back on remained the board will finally look at the evidence if the court were to say the board is remember the board to to specifically address whether or not a mixed motive exists in the light of the expert testimony of dr gorman the doctor manwaring that is that would be something that the so again just to sum up i'm running out of time here this has been a frustrating case from the beginning our position is now and has always been that the outcome is correct this case can be political opinion and that in the end the presence of a nationwide effort to eradicate gangs though unsuccessful and in the absence of her actually attempting to get the help of the police you agree that it stands on this record nor dition will evidence i believe that this record contains all the evidence that there that that there could possibly be asked to resolve this case and i was have her testimony which was fresh so i think it was two years after the events happened we have the test the expert testimony of the witnesses the only thing that might change your honor would be more recent country conditions evidence and the reason i say that is because i don't think that the immigration judge or the board ever made a finding as to whether she has a well founded fear of future persecution other words a prospect of fear future persecution i don't think the board ever made that i think that the petitioners council actually recognized that as well to the extent that a finding would have to be made and that the trial court immigration judge would would probably want more you your honor sir i'd like to start with a cat the cat issue as my colleague admitted there is no defense of the i j a is determination that she is not more likely than not to face torture she was specifically threatened with rape murder and the abduction of her child and there is no defense on that score with respect to acquiescence the evidence is clear one thing i will point out my colleague suggested that the agency had found that the under and government is making efforts to address the problem  that areas of her neighborhood were essentially no go zones because of the gangs and that she believes that the gangs and the police work together because when they would be shootings in her neighborhood the police would not come until after everyone was dead she was told by her persecut that if she did not comply if she went to the police he would kill her faster all of this direct evidence was corroborated by her expert witnesses who testified that essentially hunter s is a criminal i state and that all of the all of the evidence of acquiescence she personally experienced were consistent with their understanding of country conditions you can find that they are three ninety four three three ninety six and i want to be clear this is not a case in which every single mother in under has will be entitled to asylum or cat protection if you if you reverse the board this is and this is a case about specific evidence of threats the specific experience of one woman and her child who were threatened with horrible crimes based on their status says status she testified credibly she had declarations from her sister in law who testified that there was no threats to her even though they were living in the exact same house because she was married her experts testified that all of her personal experiences were consistent with what they understood to be the conditions in honduras this is not a case about country conditions this is a case about the experience of one woman and her young daughter and i would point out also there's been a lot of discussion about what the board that has not been the case and i think part of the problem may be that whatever the department of justice can say the department of homeland security takes a different view that's the experience we had when this case went back before the board on remand after cruise the department of justice represented that the board should reconsider its opinion in light of cruise and department holland homeland security took the position that crew crews had no impact whatsoever on that on this case so i think whatever frustration mr fear you know is experiencing  certainly sympathize with that as we are equally frustrated i'm also surprised that mr fearing is asking this court to affirm the court's decision i think it is apparent from his statements that  that is not consistent with either his cheney obligations or the obligation of this court to only affirm on the basis of the agency the agency in no way found that this is a single motive case you should see has always assessed this as a mixed motive case as is apparent terrorist mendoza which is a mixed motive case and again there would have been no reason to remain in light of cruise if this was not a mixed motive case whether whether the agency takes the view or not that this that there is a single motive ultimately doesn't change the fact that that would be wrong mrs law has testified credibly and presented other credible evidence that her status as an unmarried mother was one central reason for her persecution so the department of justice may take the view that this is not a mixed mode of case but in fact it is and she has established that her protected status was one central reason i would conclude by asking this court if you do if you are inclined to remain and for the p s g determination i would ask this court to reach the cat determination because if ms alvarez lagos and her daughter are entitled to cat that will certainly help she was to continue her pursuit for asylum because it is a stronger legal there's a stronger legal basis but if this court does remain on any aspect of the asylum decision i would ask that you reach the cat reach the cat issue and find that she is entitled to relief under cat as well if there are no further questions were prospective that you're not a guess what you're saying is we would not remand for further determination of the cat claim but would decide the claim on the present record i think there is ample evidence in the record to find that the board if i may continue i think there's ample evidence in the record to find that the agency the agencies determination that she's not entitled to cat relief is not