making sure that we looked at molina camacho in the following case which would you want to make and just a little more loudly i'm sorry it sounds loud down here i was i was just saying that my original argument has changed somewhat because of the court's order regarding the molina camacho case and the possible wots of jurisdiction over this case because of the b i actually entering the order of removal that we're here to discuss today i have spent a substantial amount of time over the last several days trying to figure out a way out of money to come on show i have i have not been clever enough because i keep coming down to the fact that t the answer opposing counsel tells me he has perhaps been more clever than i and has an argument to present to you on the jurisdiction question i truly don't want to come on show i have not come up with anything to refute that the be i may not enter an order of removal which is what happened here i can find nothing in the record that deviates or distinguishes the case adequately that i feel i could present to you with a straight face therefore i have come to ask that you do indeed treat this petition as one for nadya's and transfer it to the appropriate district court i would be happy to discuss the merits or go further on he is argument but why don't we hear from all order had not been entered by the immigration judge the facts of what precisely the immigration judge did are not listed directly in my camacho so you could distinguish this case factually but i my primary argument that you should distinguish it on the law and that is precisely what they said and will in a camacho after melinda camacho's relatively long argument regarding noriega lopez and whether or not the board has the authority to enter an enter an order in the first instance and not here to argue about that the court ended up in its next to last paragraph part of the conclusion saying we're not aware of any statute that tells us what a removal order entered by an immigration judge is and the government hasn't been able to point  congress specifically defines order of deportation which if that term wasn't changed when the congress stopped using the term the importation and started using removal it in change that particular section the statute but the particular such section there's no reason for that or unless both are removal order it doesn't make sense unless congress was anticipating the context in which an immigration judge would do exactly what he did here that unremovable and there's no question that's a curse nicely what he did in the record and in fact he goes on and says and i order you and i say and i'm telling you that you're going to be removed to columbia he specifically designates the country of removal so it's clear that the immigration judge was intending removal in this case foundry movability precisely as the statute provides so what i'm suggesting here is based on the law based on what monino camacho in fact tells you that it couldn't the government didn't point it to a statute now that i've pointed you to the statute you can distinguish more and camacho on the law or you can distinguish it on the facts because it doesn't identify the specific facts of the finding of remove a billet alone in the hasn't pointed us to a statute so you think the government can come in and make its argument an issue and then when it loses come back the next day well we didn't really make the right argument here is another and it happens all the time that i'm sure argument is based on that the whole argument is based on something different and it doesn't occur to anybody that there's an underlying issue we thought we had to win on the first issue and the underlying issue is still there the fact is congress discussed that point directly but my in the context of the camacho case where all of the argument was focusing on whether or not the board itself had the authority to enter an order in the in the first instance that argument just never came up so we were forced to concede that the rehearing argument was moved it was not that it wasn't there was not that wasn't argue with the court like to hear something on the merits by by his own decision and it reversed by that because the facts didn't support the findings that he made the essence of the argument the basic argument that's been made all along by the petitioners is that they're somehow part of a the board specifically held that health care professionals in the abstract is all about oil government employees loyal government employees has gone up and down based on different sets of facts in oil government hospital employee in this case he quit his job as a government employee and there's no evidence that he was if anything a more cohesive identity and interest and definition then loyal government hospital workers does we're talking about people of mixed age who had a particular interest in either avoiding or not avoiding or  persecution based on recruitment by one side or another you know in a civil war and this court was pretty specific and has been specific in all of the cases since then citing censorship curio saying look if that's not that's not a social group men men with who are politically neutral i mean to find all put all of that into the definition and said sorry that's still not enough to be a particular social group that's that's too diverse that doesn't doesn't cover the ground this court  analysis that the board's provides here is essentially right on point here it's not fundamental to them as individuals it is not fundamental to them as a group it isn't a cohesive common interest they are completely diverse they have complete what would you ever think of the lawyer on the margin for a minute you are all trained professionals who could do different jobs don't you think you're right for example politically don't you think you're a member of a scout group i am not a member of it as a as an attorney in the department of justice i am not a member of a particular social group in the sense that is covered by the immigration or nationality of a rebel with i will tell you that i am radically politically different than the people with their offices on either side of me i will tell you that their backgrounds are totally different from mine and they didn't spend twenty years in the marine corps before joining just as they did you know all of those things are completely different and there are those there is i bring all of that to my position in the department of justice and other people bring the same sorts of things to their positions in the  jobs simple occupations vocations isn't going to be enough and that's what the court held in the matter of across the board held a matter of a cost that whether we're talking about a union of taxi drivers the taxi drivers all had the same occupation they were part of the same union same place doing the same thing but that's not what we had in mind for a particular social group  reason for the persecution was his political opinion your honor if you had been in a private hospital and had said the exact same thing you would not be suggesting that it's a matter of his political opinion there is no basis for assuming that the persecutor came to him because it was a government hospital as opposed to a private hospital if it had a private hospital they still would have come to them and they still would have asked for the exact same thing the fact that he was a government employee made no difference in the motivations of the prosecutor the prosecutor came to him for the reason that he was a medical professional and met and that his role in the government had zero to do with it there's nothing in there in the record that would show that the persecutors wanted anything but medical care nor is there any know have a comment you don't have if you go the way i read molina camacho they had decided the issue that he brought up at this point they had looked at the statute perhaps not exactly th the tone that he's looking at but i'm all for jurisdiction and if you decide to go down that road i will certainly support it but i have not parsed that particular distinction out of the statute quickly as as your honor pointed out we do argue that this is a much more comprehensive social group then say taxi drivers or a group of young urban males of military age we have conceded in the  according to the law that your social group cannot be so diverse as to sweep every alien into into one however we feel that the b i a was perhaps a little too expansive in its definition in this particular case the here are not that this was a training nurse or a random travelling surgeon this was a very important government hospital authority and we feel that that should that these are the facts and that should play into how his particular social group is defined as far as being a health care worker perhaps you could argue that they should be grouped together on certain levels however if you if you look more closely at the facts there's a lot here that says you should draw the narrow group ok at least authorities of people in high power and that he happen to work for a government hospital is very important here the rebels as as we know are are targeting the government that is their enemy that is their an a it he was in total control of this hospital he had complete access to all of the drugs medication and personnel that he needed he refused to help them and we can argue whether that was motivated by his fact but in the record if you look at the state department report it shows that many many people were targeted and killed under the rebels control etc doctors were definitely killed but i have nothing in the record that shows that health care workers so to speak were targeted however of course high government officials well government employees these are not friendly people to i would also argue that a cost which groups taxi drivers and rejected that as a particular social group as i said in the brief with all due respect to taxi drivers i do believe that an alliance profession doctors go through rigorous training they have to be motivated by the desire to help and heal this man was working in rural areas to ensure adequate health care to his people he position of authority within a state hospital and therefore you have an extra layer where perhaps it is conflated between his imputed political opinion and his social group but he was certainly targeted because he was a top official within a hospital that it was a government hospital also placed into it