in addition to answering any questions that your honors might have had just like to draw the court's attention to a few points this morning which support the viability of the petitioners proposed social group under both criteria that the board's interpretation of a particular social group as defined in the immigration and nationality act thus far it hasn't actually been necessary to do so for this court we would have we would advocate and advance the argument but as a fundamental as a baseline i just wanted to make sure we had it and again as you to it but even if if not we certainly meet the criteria for a particular social group under this circuit and the board's own precedent as well and the fact that the membership in this case is imputed has no bearing on the viability of the proposals or group and finally to the extent that opposing counsel would seek to know there was a supplemental authority recently filed with the court we would have maintained that it actually assists with our argument a bit more than the government's specifically it embraces both elements of this court's decision which did again did not reach the ultimate question of whether or not the board's interpretation is a legitimate exercise of agency discretion but further when do you live in circuit druid's nice lines and actually separate the two criteria that are so often conflated it did so in a way that and its own way refrained from ruling on the ultimate question itself therefore you would advocate that even under this modified test social visibility are you saying that your client meets all three of those criteria all right or much should go through each one and tell us why well in terms of the immutable characteristic persecution based on his membership in a group of people that are readily identified on jumping ahead i do apologize how they readily identify specifically your honor by the persecutors themselves  staying at the house of the but even if he was just ditch how would you would put him in a group that included others when you can't know who the others are they don't want to buy that they are either crippled by the board's own definition is a characteristic that he is unable to change and even if you could  i guess that the second part doesn't quite apply if you shouldn't be forced to because he would gladly but of the two guys that were at the house within that think too highly of him now what would happen if they decided well maybe he didn't be correct nor is it a position of former military leadership but it is certainly one with which you know not being privy to the internal policies of cartel organizations i certainly don't want to speculate but i just really didn't mean this one thing that struck me about this case may not be either here or there but you had a couple guys live in a house together and some of went to jail and this fellow did they don't like it and that happens a lot in criminal endeavors but this almost has the appearance of being a personal dispute between these two three or four individuals and it doesn't i don't get the image that it's what you would see through the media connection to a bass cartel it appears to be just a personal dispute  among criminal defendants which is pretty common that is true honor i would draw two points to distinguish it the first is that it was not simply a matter of local police and a drug bust sort of situation it was a sting house the acquaintance of mr banta home a drano they were not only sent to jail convicted of drug crimes but then deported back to mexico all of which happened within a matter of hours certainly under fifty six hours group having a real difficult figuring out what the boundaries if if thus far the parameters of the informant group at least under the existing board president without going into the split has been drug informants who testify at trial and says with prosecution and therefore been there by witches and this fellow here no your honor but there is a level of particularly that is revealed by the discovery of their identity whether or not that identity is iranians or the supposition is erroneous should not factor in the fact remains that this these two men who were convicted of very serious drug crimes and subsequent imported have convinced themselves tantamount to specific threats being made against specific people based on quantifiable actions based based on police action the involved with the police whether factually accurate or not police the fact that there is these these specific people were identified or in this case one person was a den of fide as the sole cause of the issues that all the convictions  deportations that his two acquaintances suffered they sought him out specifically rather than a group of his similarly situated peers who would be perhaps amenable to some kind of board president we would submit that the board did certainly have used its discretion and reversing the decision of the immigration judge and finding that the proposed social group was not a protective ground  the first a few reasons being the board actually failed to even mention its own precedent in the decision there was no mention of particularities nor social or social visibility in the board's opinion on appeal  asserted that the immigration judge actually failed to distinguish the social group from the one rejected by the board a matter of ca which is twenty three i n n decisions nine fifty one in that case the board actually refusing to acknowledge former non criminal drug informants who were working in california or the california cartel in this case there's one it was in the country illegally he had nothing to do with law enforcement and he was  the he was mistakenly thought to have been precisely the type of a member of that a member of precisely the kind of group that the board rejected and matter of  cia it's simply the department of homeland security and on appeal that asserts that the argument that there is that the petitioner social group is not sufficiently socially visible nor particular you know i guess this harkens back to the original point but the petitioner does once again submit that his imputed membership in this proposal group just does not make a difference with the ultimate question specifically if the court finds that the  interpretation is reasonable it still meets the president established by this court and further testifying against i'm sorry excuse me that the board has held that testifying against certain criminal elements has a social visible component but they didn't hold that testifying is the only means of revelation it's once the identities are revealed that it becomes a particular group and i see my time is run so thank you your honor may it please the court smith on behalf of the attorney general keeping in mind that the particular citigroup basis for asylum was not intended to be a catchall for everyone seeking that particular relief the court should deny the petition for review because  requirement or more specifically the lack of particularity of the group in that case so under this court's precedent it can stop at the particular the lack of particularities of the social group claims and not go any farther and deny the petition for review if the court does decide to go farther it's the government's position that particular that petitioners arguments regarding the timi are meritless and in any event his claims group does not possess the required social visibility as there is no evidence in the record that his claimed group is perceived by mexican sought mexican society as a group is not bound by board precedent that those three criteria came around and that the oath to muse thing that we've gotten you don't have to meet the particular any crime if we should conclude that you haven't met it it should you can you say well there's not a hard out necessarily there there's not a you know there's scenario simply because you know but up until well frankly right now this court has usually stopped at the imm characteristic analysis it hasn't had the opportunity to talk about the particular the requirement and it hasn't been met and if we should find it hasn't been met here is there say it is there some i don't understand i'm just asking you maybe we will find it has been met but we find it hasn't been met is that all she wrote or do you have some argument that there is no particularly requirement for them but yes i guess that's what i was alluding to perhaps i was not clear  so you say there is no particular as things stand at the moment there's there certainly is whether or not it's conflated with the social visibility requirement as well or a discrete element is well in we have had prior precedent yes where we have found that a particular of the requirement all by itself has not been met so we have to in order to find that there is no free standing particularly requirement this would have to reject use the view on you live under these circumstances yes ok now i'm sorry if the it just simply in response to opposing counsel you know obviously thus far we've been discussing the particular requirements not only was that actual element absent from the or decision but the government has focused more on the social built visibility criterion and and certainly as the president stands under the circuit at the moment and