qualifies for any relief this court needs to announce the proper legal frameworks for a b salvadoran woman and kept st a beat is a new rule that cannot be retroactively applied if the rule of law means but that doesn't ordinarily establish in a reliance interested she do anything that she changed her behavior and reliance upon the prior case law your honor my sense here is that a trying to put to you certainly the legal framework may have changed our court has a lot of experience with that because the supreme court from time to time changes our legal framework but that doesn't mean we disregard the supreme court's decision and continue to apply what we thought was the lot despite what the supreme court said simply because we think our statement was a poor year or because parties may have based their legal arguments and what we said now if there's a reliance interest because somebody changed behavior did not for example file a given motion because our prior case law said they didn't have to file that motive and now they want to kind of that here so the question i'm trying to put to you is did your client behave differently in reliance on the prior case all your argument is simply based that you like the paraphrased better because it leads to a better result not sure that's very powerful if you can show me something where she changed her behavior and reliance on her case law that's something that might be more interested in so did she change your behavior you know on it the best answer i can give you is that on this record behavior and that's fine i'll accept that but understand i'm putting to you the question of whether she changed her behavior and i haven't heard anything from you that suggests you did ok on it even if you disagree there are two other issues two other avenues that quote women in a particularly country regardless of the city or clan membership could form a particular social group and size does not matter the i j a the observation that ninety eight percent all women in somalia in theory could be included in a group somalian females if there were so persecuted on that basis this might have been the benefit or for example and mohammed the i g found the group salvadoran woman too broad and the agency didn't have when they decided those cases we sent them back because they didn't have the benefit of predominate the time they made their decision there are one or two cases that you list that show that we sent it back when after after the board made a decision when the board made a decision after predominate but you know i guess that you know it must be a hard k oh we just lost our or advocate have those cases that you listed in your brief right that we sent back to the b i would be i had a chance to decide this question many of those cases were sent back because the board did not have the benefit of the of our decision to predominate the time they rendered the decision in those particular cases there are a couple of cases where the board's decision was after predominant they didn't decide the question and we still something case back but if you know it's a difficult issue i guess for the agency and they just haven't been able to they haven't yet grappled with it right your honor so we do not know what happened to the other cases that were remanded astir for don't know but we assume that the government must have also agreed to settle in a manner that avoided any binding authority from the i j a or the i a e a or to help others so it's a favorite saying because a continuing parade of remand of cases is resulting in continuing uncertainty we're asking this court to declare al action was a resource problem but it is not it is corruption and complicity with the gangs the best case on point is magic all the old their corruption and efficacy of the government's efforts to curb gang violence is fact the gangs and police are so coordinated that the canadian immigration and refugee board found that the gangs are quote seen as the fact of what are these and many communities and applying auburn donnel this court has  was treated a particular social group so during women now the board didn't name that group specifically and instead of just sort of mentioned here are two examples neither of which were salvadoran women they were single salvadoran daughters or daughters  of the titian or groups were sufficiently particular or socially distinct but didn't name salvadoran women now it is conceivable that the board intended to include self adoring women among the list of proposed groups but didn't meet the standard was exhausted it was exhausted but the way that it was placed in the appeal brief might have led to some confusion confusion is actually in the next the section and picked position or argued that the immigration judge completely ignored or didn't address salvatore woman as a group and so the board didn't comment on that finding which was undermined by the record of the immigration which it did address that but where the board didn't name the group specifically and also didn't even respond to the argument that was spencer centered around that that group it is questionable whether or not the board might have actually missed the script completely and so the board needs to clarify whether it was even addressing the issue in the st place on this case to the board because to the agency because there are other there are issues that that need to be further considered by the board and as across the it was that it was just a blanket motion to rema on and i gather that's based that in your view the particular social group of salvadoran doctors and salvadoran women and all the other kind of connected groups they need to be looked at together is that the other issues that petitioner asked the court to address even if petitioner were right on those issues which you know as a free state we don't agree with the majority of those arguments but even if this court were to agree with those arguments they wouldn't be dispositive of her application for capital actions or of withholding level so if this case goes back to the board the board has an opportunity to issue a completely new decision  she would have the opportunity to petition for a view of that decision and get those issues before this court again so i guess from our point of view remanding the petition in its entirety makes a lot of sense decided it before wasn't you know to like do the agency a favorite with it was because the court can't make these determinations which involve factual finding in the st instance now you know this court can determine  immutability as that's a legal question but what is socially distinctive one particular requires a case by case with ice specific inquiry into the social distinctiveness or particularly of that group within that country so the board needs to make those those factual findings each time based on each record so that's sort of the reason why you know this court hasn't just gone ahead and done so because the court can't say that these groups are well it seems to me that the board's rejection has more to do with the concept is what it takes to be a particular social group so if you look at prideaux move for example the group there i think was what women in guatemala i was really different from women in all salvador granted i don't respect but the concept seems to be what city issues not the particular actually do think you're right that this is sort of exactly the same sort of scenario we're talking about a group that is defined by stacks and whether or not that is going to meet the standards in a particular society you know clearly for the st time also in this case well i hear you were also concerned about the passage of time and we actually got hit between the eyes yesterday because the attorney general entered an order in capital cases that cases coming out of california rather arizona are now subject to a real strict time limit our court has six months to deal with an appeal from a capital hideous petition from arizona expecting to be a to speak to some of these issues in less than ten years doesn't strike me as unreasonable so why should we waiting i mean i doesn't strike me as unreasonable either i agree it would be you know they've not uncommon for an adjudicative body whether a quarter or an agency to kind of put off those harder questions they're not required to find on every single issue as long as they are  or the or the or the the the clearest answer and so regardless of you know how i might feel about about how long it's taking it hasn't done in permissible  case could go back and could be the case in which the board finally goes through that analysis and you're right since i think someone mentioned that the standard has for a particular group has somewhat changed  queen the board finally makes that decision but either way they haven't done it here and they do need to grapple with this court's law they need to grapple with perdomo and they need to specifically state whether or not they even addressed this  p in the st decision and i would also just want to say like even if even if this court were to find ok salvadoran women are a particular social group this case still needs to be remanded because there are other issues then they come into play there's no nexus finding regarding whether or not there is a nexus between salvadoran women and the persecution feared and in order for for so in order for her  o win on her folding claim there would have to be that finding the board never addressed the relocation point and that finding would also need to be addressed so whether this is this court even if even if this court were to find and i shouldn't because it involves factual it doesn't say that it doesn't say that at all it actually says specifically that each group needs to be assessed on a case by case basis and that is actually what do you get that as well i would also say that that's not exactly an issue in this particular case because if you look at the board's decision they st talk about how these groups the position of propose weren't particular and they weren't socially just things and then it goes back to the dress and her argument that the immigration judge should not  be so so the reason that the board rejected daughter salvatore and daughters who are unable to leave their parental relationships is because it's not particular and it's not socially the things that's supported by evidence i mean it becomes a question of what does it even mean to leave a plan to a relationship doesn't mean you don't live with your parents anymore doesn't mean that you don't have any personal obligation to their parents or like does it on holidays or give them money or something like that or does it just mean  that people are always going to assume or or consider you to be someone's daughter and so when you have been so in more feste like that it's very unclear who's in the group who's out of the court and so we have a group here that doesn't meet the under chevron is entitle to speak to in the st interest instance and and one hundred random acts the fact that our court may have already spoken on that question doesn't rule out the possibility that the agency can speak and we can be bound to follow the agency so why isn't it up to the agency in the st instance to decide what the ticket or social group means what the requirements are well your honor the elements of know are the legal elements for a particular social group the other elements nexus and the unwilling or unable prongs are the factual base increase ten years ago yes oh can you hear me your honor i can now i don't know if you heard me i just went completely blank for about ten seconds so i apologize and technology may not have all the bugs worked out yet i apologize for that the question i was trying to put in i don't know if you could hear me is that except for the for discussion your proposition but under or under chevron and brand x i'm not sure how that excuses this record shows how awkward and artificial it is to separate out and put different harms in different silences and your cat only the great by the kings is legally relevant and under only the abuse by her father is legally relevant but she suffered from all of this abuse for twenty years why isn't all of this relevant recognizing salvadoran women as a particular social group is most intellectually honest and actually accurate way to describe what happens hours with only if we ask you to but there's no need for that i was just curious well probably it's a fair question because it came up in connection with the government's motion and i think i confess i haven't read the opposition in a few days but it seemed to me a note the concern there that that she can't work up i assume this course is still on the line do you have an understanding as to the working or not and your honor this is curry hon i can speak to that she is not allowed to work under the regulations that's her under the conditions for release in custody yes thank you very much i think to thank you a number of things one for your willingness to work dissipate in the in the court's pro bono program it's very helpful to for your willingness to join us in a virtual court i know it's not