only one conclusion there is no need to require agency reconsideration under age i say the board said that the hypothetical group of those who quote publicly cooperate with law enforcement unquote would be particular confusing response in my view same tourist says if the agency didn't decide an issue we cannot and here are the agency to find of all the your shoes nothing has could seems to me that with respect to the particular social group question even if there is no technical problem why would we try to interpret the agency's new precedents before it has had a chance to interpret its own person and i understand on the other claims there's kind of no change in the law or no change the mood warrants you know not just defining those issues but everything that related to foetal group international drug running schemes that imported fifty six thousand dollars worth of heroin each week maybe you can correct something for me i thought this was a fairly unfortunate situation where the government  didn't really want a published everything you know put them out on the street but i thought he got out of one hundred and twenty months because of that is that true so that right after right after he  do so the betting of the cartel the mexican police will arrest the cartels rival and hand them over to the cartel to murder them effects can police officers refuse the cartel petting the cartels will go after them this record it's not like i'm driving  petitioner relating to his mental illness however the government does request we may end as to two issues the st is whether petitioners particular social group is sufficiently particular and socially just seeing in light of it's about particular social groups which are not even relevant to the chair analysis and you have you know one expert here who say that the chances of the local  police actually trying to protect this individual are you his words are extremely low and that you know that this guy's going to be marked for killing why did why should we remember you know i don't i understand there's two questions in there regarding the ventura issue discordance both sides the ashcroft said applies as in torah ordinary man rule in a case where the agency had already decided to change circumstances  issue but the court found that it the agency had erred by not applying an individualized sort of analysis of that conclusion and so the court sort of grappled with this question and said well you know ventura involved a case where the agency didn't reach the issue at all and this case is different because the agency did reach that issue but ultimately the court said under the the ordinary riemann rule we're going to send this back to the agency because it involved fact finding right there there needs to be an application of the proper unable to find any reminding for sort of a or rather deciding the case relating to a whole type of challenge where the court granted asylum rather cat outright and in  so i think because this case involves that specific scenario where we need further analysis from the agency as to cat and expert evidence remained would be appropriate well carol so you know the b r respected their probability of future torture indicated i considered the experts evidence and then characterize it and generalized dismiss it as generalized and i think that petitioners correct that is i think that that did and so we you know i'm the government trying to do the right thing and have and i understand you know this sort of frustration of this being affected by that the apple but i think that the idea is this case needed to be remanded anyways for a marriage of the care questions why isn't every reasonable fact finder compelled to conclude that this person is partly to be killed or tortured you have to try your honor would like me to address the merits rather than have kind of bad facts heroes because you know if you know the government you know i'm not saying that they maliciously did it but when you have a an agreement to cooperate then you give it to all the people they're going to talk to five against them you probably put it out there that's a pretty hard one to pull back i understand your honor and i think that you know going to the merits we think that and that argued and in the interim brief we think that sort of what distinguishes this case in terms of clear probability of future torture is that in the sort of i guess it's been now nine or ten years or rather i guess it's been seven years since this agreement has become public he hasn't received any threats and and i think that that's really important and also his family passage of time in a new case to his advantage when you want to use the passage of time to your advantage and say he has been threatened so it's less likely that he would be ordered right if that was your stance i think that you know that's what the immigration judge you are not a bit and you want to say that mexico's doing better i think that's also part of the acquiescence finding cracks but it's so sorry going going quality of that claim that you see where the court judge something might have happened to the clock i think that might have frozen it the clock very most ok now because i'm talking to my really forward looking and so if the court looks at the merits we think that that should remain for further consideration in light of the expert evidence and  your honor i think that the idea was that because we we needed remained to asylum and withholding which if granted below would root out you know if we thought it would be best for the government rather for the agency to provide a better clearer decision in reconsider it in light of the expert evidence but i think that  her perhaps i've misspoken then but i think that typically individuals would prefer asylum and withholding to remove all because there's more protections attached and cat is is a lot more  particular social group determination in the st instance i think it's because there's an intervening decision that we clarifies the board's position on these type of groups premised on law enforcement cooperation and moreover and we think that there are still some fac finding issues that need to be resolved in light of the clarifications provided by the board in matter of inches away so unless your honour's have any questions my time is up i think you