conceded that this case should be remanded to the v i i in light of a r c g or the board held that married women in guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship are a particular social group but although  on the issue of whether liliana was and will be persecuted on account of her membership in a particular social group the government still fails to confront a threshold error by the board contrary to substantial evidence in the record you  fourteen forced her to live with him and his family in a couple go beat her daily cut her with a knife and even threaten her with a pistol to her head if the showed here and in other words you want to proceed with your case with respect to the threshold question of whether she was persecuted which the b i a n e i j both said that she didn't suffer domestic abuse yes your honor if you disagree with us at least with respect to the past persecution question whether she was abused in mexico that would affect part of the inquiry but there is still the freezer persecution element which could be take the government's requests to remain in this case to the agency as a concession that it be used women in mexico who cannot leave their husbands are  this exact same social group that it believes that these groups are probably cognize a bowl there is no b i a precedent to that effect since the l r brief was submitted by d h us several years ago but  you do have to look at the society in question and whether the society itself perceives considers or recognizes the group to be a distinct part of society which is why they have been cabinet probably country by country now  lly it would be looked at more broadly in the domestic violence we know for example expert testimony and other cases that we've seen that women in the united states to separate domestic abuse are  unable to leave their husbands and the police are often and willing to help them so i'm just wondering you know it is a common characteristic of the whole situation  is and it's one of the reasons why the court has also recognised in cases like a free that you don't have to actually go directly and report the violence because there are certain systemic issues here at least in terms of defining a group so that it's not overly broad if that's the court's concern that you'd be letting in one too many people through the avenue of domestic violence claims there are as the government itself recognized in d h s numerous other elements to determining whether this particular applicant should be granted withholding of removal both the persecution whether it's on account of the membership in that group and then of course whether or not there's been rebuttal of the presumption but if you have shown past persecution but the government of it at least in this case hasn't been contesting that this is a potential group that obviously thinks that remaining to the v i i is appropriate for it to consider it you an opportunity of a rematch and and if they really believed that the case was dispositive on the ground that there was no case persecution i don't know why they would offer remained but you want to turn that down and take your chances that you're going to win the argument really was there in the case finding which was based on the fact that there was no  certainly want us to decide that issue but only if we decided in favor of you because if we just kind of against you you're giving up the whole case well your honor two points first obviously we would prefer the best result for the client which if that is a rematch and under the government's framework that's ideal but excepting that i think you know the record as a whole doesn't really compel a different conclusion here with respect to whether she was persecuted in mexico no no i understand i'm not  suggesting you're arguing that argument i'm just asking whether you have thought through the subject of whether you really want to that issue which if it's not it against you would mean the end of your case evidence of persecution occurred in mexico your honor i think the way the three men should be formulated to address that is to ensure that it is on all of the issues in this case the government is saying to remain in light of a r c g including lianas claim that she was persecuted in mexico now that's certainly true but if the v i i again makes the exact same error on the factual threshold question it would do exactly what i j did below and say i'm not even going to reach the question of the particular social group if i still find her let's not go into the social group question you would think they would not come back and say we were wrong to ask for alone cannot actually graze because the whole point of the boat in the ordinary ordinary arena andrew in the first place is give it a chance to actually address that question in the first instance the question being whether there was passed person now to threaten her and that once they moved to the united states his abuse continued and finally i guess she was able to get a divorce and he went back to mexico but he still threatening her she didn't actually testify to that during consider all issues limited re manned and some respect well i would say it's a rematch consider all issues to the extent that the starting point of this whole discussion is whether or not there was passed persecution and that's a question that any analysis asking past persecution can be conducted did raise the prospect that she had then abused by her husband in mexico but she failed to actually pursue that cling to for the immigration judge not sure if that addresses your concern is that some limitation that you are concerned so the lighting bulb went off after i was assigned to argue the case and after we really spent time in the case and engaged in considerable discussion as to whether this is appropriate for email and now our office is extraordinarily circumspect about not there was a governmental actor or someone that the government was unable to control and was actually involved in the sports commission and what about you finding that she was not prosecuted in mexico that the event did not take  issue would not be open if we yeah i also you know you're right it doesn't matter a lot what you say what matters is what we put in an order every man and basically what your opponent is saying you offer saying yes we would be willing to have agreement and if you will say that all of the issues are open remained without limitation and you are for some  your honors we accept a full and complete remand but to be clear it's the government's position that that concerns us right now that she did that they're not conceding that she suffered past persecution in mexico as you recognize there's overwhelming evidence of that and that's the only issue on which the board and i j ultimately decided the question of past persecution here and just to clarify counsel made statements that she didn't testify at the hearing on these questions first did mention her fears of her husband at the hearing she extensively talked about this in the i five eighty nine which is her written application for asylum and not in the rectory mentioned and that was introduced into evidence limitation or we could decide the case as it is yes your honor and we think that considering it as a total offer without limitation for a man is the best approach here thank you all right thank you very much and