would like to reserve three minutes for a battle you just keep around the clock will try to help you thank you as you know your honour's this case involves a mother and a daughter who seek the protection of our silent laws and the court has proposed can you help me with what happened here me tell you how i agreed with the i j a didn't tell me tell me if i'm wrong the i j a said something like i've heard your testimony but i really don't think that the persecution that you fear arises from your membership in the group of young women but rather from your membership in a group of rich children is that your understanding alternative social group young rich children have been fact young rich children the i would sort of that's what the b i j said said look you really don't face persecution because you're a young woman you may face persecution because your family like you i'm not sure that the b a b ira pick between the two but i was interested in what the i j a had said and i'm sure that i kind of branch off from what my colleague in just mentioned here as i read what the daughter said in her i five eighty nine application she said that she was in quotes a young single woman the define the group as young single women who are targeted for harm in guatemala but either way you've got the characteristic of being single and your are ready as vs lynch cases you know the characteristics of a social group must be immutable is being single and immutable characteristic of course one can always well it's a voluntary it's like a voluntary association one can belong to a group and that can be recognized as a social group as well so the b a in an earlier point had a case involving taxi drivers who are  and they said that they they were as a social group members of group who drove taxis and they disqualify the group on the basis that they could change jobs they could change their professions so it was an immutable what's the difference i mean personhood vs one's occupation is that's not quite so i've read but but at least as i read it what this young woman was saying is i'm vulnerable i'm i'm being targeted by these gangs because i'm single i'm a young woman and i'm vulnerable if she was married in theory she would be a less sol so it's not quite the same as what you were talking about earlier is it well you could have that the social group could social group would remain the same young single women people join religions and move out of religions all the time the religion stays the same but the person changes could someone claim to be the member of a religion for instance sure of course the social group would not change as that confines a social group within chains and a person could leave a group and still a different question it's about the cat claim he did the i j a make a finding that the both of the petitioners were not likely to be to do as they didn't it wasn't a reasonable likelihood that they would be tortured if we turn to guatemala i believe you just be to be i e says that finding was supported by the evidence and then says there was also finding that it wasn't going to be with you that there wasn't going to be government acquiescence or involvement in that supported i have questions about the second finding but i'm trying to figure out whether the i j a made the first one i don't think he did i think he jumped to the second one and lump them both together to say that she's not going to be tortured in the future mixed motive extortion plus directed at the daughter but the mother qualifies for asylum or withholding as well because as the court has held in other cases including benyamin beholder five seven nine f three d nine seventy nine circa two thousand and five harm directed at a parent's child is can if it's severe enough as harm drug to the parents and all matter of a b effect this i don't believe it does  court my name is jesse lawrence and i represent the attorney general united states i just like to take a quick second to address judge what's his concern about the cat determination here are the petitioners fear gangs cat is designed to protect against the government so they necessarily had to show consent or acquiescence of the government since they don't fear the government it was an improper for the i j a not to address i guess what you're considering the first portion of it because she's can she's not fearing the government that there's actually two separate parts of it and here's my concern if you if there's not a reasonable likelihood that you will be tortured by anyone then you're not entitled to get relief if there is a reasonable likelihood  going to be tortured in the question is whether the torture will either be the government or somebody acting with the acquiescence of the government and the i j a as your colleague said said you haven't shown that you would be reasonable that go be tortured with the acquiescence of the government to be i said he made two findings one that is not a legal reasonable likelihood you'll be tortured which would end the analysis or second even if you would that it wouldn't be with the acquiesce government on that second part i'm not sure i have some concerns about whether or not the case finding is correct and so i'm trying to figure out whether there's one finding your two and i suit saying i misunderstood your question i r case is stronger and so i'm trying to figure out whether or not the the i j a said it really doesn't matter because you're not likely to be tortured well into your concern government acquiescence because if she fears gangs and it's the positive of her cat likely to fear harm because it's so fierce that such a factual finding and the board can't make factual findings that the i j a didn't make so i still i still going back to trying to figure out what factual finding jamie well i think the i j a was focusing on the government acquiescence part and as i mentioned it is independently diffs positive so the boards agree agreement with that is dispositive a claim so if you believe the r j was focusing on the acquiescence part do you also believe that he didn't make a finding with respect to the likelihood or i don't think he directly addressed that i think that was he kind of looked at the i mean he found no past persecution which i think is supported and that's right that's a fact that because of our trash it's a fact that he could have relied on to make the finding as to the first half of the test but like you i'm not sure that he did make forty and i see what you're saying but as i mentioned the acquiescence and consent that is independently dispositive of our cat claim so can i move to a slightly different issue here that will call a mother and daughter census otherwise as confusing did the b i a decision address whether the daughter's proposed social group was cognized i don't believe it did i think they assume for the sake of argument that it own decision rests pretty strongly on the nexus terminations that they feared nothing more than indiscriminate crime and i think that is supported and i think that that is consistent with this court's decision and they didn't show that but is that enough one of needed to be done with respect to the daughter so my question to the government is in the event that the b i a failed to determine whether the daughter's social group was cognized of all or for that matter barajas applied in this situation what should we do again we decide on ourselves or do we need to remain and with respect to the daughter on the withholding claim to be  was one central reason to be i didn't say there's no evidence at all you may be right in evaluating the evidence but it's not with the b o h sit well i think i think your honor i think that i understand that they cited to the one central reason test but i really think that bottom their determination is a it's no reason other than crime did they find i think that that is actually what i think the at the core of the i j a suspicion is the same thing that regardless of what their proposed groups are they basically fear only crime and i mean if you look at the transcripts of their they're hearing they're basically just saying these guys wanted money from us the persecutors or the alleged persecutors motor of motive in this case is only financial to focus on what the fact finder found may be right if i were  fact finder that might be what i found one of the i j a actually fine i think that's what the i g found i mean that is definitely the heart of the i just decision they're asylum withholding claims that they didn't fear anything other than criminal violence it's just the these extortionists were motivated by money and there's no showing that they're motivated by anything else than financial gain to answer the question your earlier question i'm sorry about the particular social group i don't think this court has to reach that  and whole cloth and in this case it seems like they did not analyze the social group issue and they clearly didn't apply but us they talked about one central reason then they said so if they said that that standard has been changed by about a house even though ultimately based of what the i g did that it may be futile because they're going to come right back and say that is a reason and that's all that's necessary we can't make that decision as a court of appeal  decisions the court has found that the broadcast into the matter because it's just there's no reason other than indiscriminate crime that's the government's position in this case that there's no reason to remount for bras because it is just an industry fear of indiscriminate crimes that if that were the only issue you may or may not be right but well they didn't consider the cognized of illness of the daughter's social group or focus on a reason as opposed to one central reason we really have to send it back with respect to the daughters withholding claimed only what i respectfully disagree with that i think that the nexus to terminations a determination that this is indiscriminate crime is dispositive i mean as i was but the problem is that the v i i doesn't say what you say to be i e doesn't say the only the only reason for your fear is indiscriminate a crime to be i a e a says it's not one central reason for your fear and so does the i the i j a said he was the one central reason language to and i do understand that and that was that you know that was the standard at the time but where i don't i don't know i'm not criticizing anyone tell you what our problem wish and i understand your concerns it's just the government's position in this case that remained is unnecessary because i think that the record evidence is so clear that they only fear indiscriminate crime i mean there's no evidence that her persecutors remoted motivated any part by anything other than money and their testimony reflects that the position that even though they've used that language it's clear from the record that it's just there's no reason other than indiscriminate crime which this court has found as an insufficient basis for asylum withholding the can i ask you to switch to switch topics for a second can you address your your colleague's contention that even if the mother doesn't belong to a cognizable social group even to be i was correct in saying her social groups were not cognize it will she nonetheless can get relief because if our daughter does i'm i'm not and i'm not entirely sure about that it's neither my which is why they ask yeah i just i don't know if i can give you the exact answer but it seems to me since that her daughter's asylum application was independent of her mother she wasn't a derivative that it would be necessary i mean i think the mother social groups are clearly not cognizable they're defined only by the harm that they experience the circularity and the board's precedent that's that's impossible f point was briefed it was argued all although rather succinctly and not well i would admit but at opening brief at page twelve and in the ministry of record at page twenty two that argument was made was that the ninth circuit's decision how it was postured but the hardly that any of our decisions could be anything other than absolutely clear but it was clear that what was clear was the reasoning is that the harm was to the daughter and therefore the parents could qualify for asylum that way even though technically a parent cannot be a derivative of a it's kind of it in this case in this case would you not admit that the that they proceeded separately you know the daughter's social group was entirely different than the mother's only different circumstances as far as the their the basis for their claims yes although i would redirect the court to the record where there's a phone call to the mother even and the harm that stretton to the mater to the mother is we're going to cut your daughter up a little pieces so i would argue that they're part of the same harm that's being you are you saying does this cut both ways