cases in the order in which they appear on the docket beginning with akko song versus bar that was waiting for the clock to start running on is the key to understanding this case is credibility my client was found to be credible the board did not disturb that finding and so the following facts have to be taken as undisputed and uncontroverted she was a single childless woman and only single childless women can be married to the village chief she was being forced to marry against  will there is no question that this is not a proposed marriage or even a proposed arranged marriages with a forced marriage she was living in hiding for over a year not living a normal life she was living in hiding she mentioned that twice at least on the record her family was harmed for her refusal of the marriage kill you ask you question about the social group yes it oh she did my concern is you my concern is your previous attack the particular social group that the i j proposed and rejected the problem with  same group i don't attack it it's the same group that single childless women in cameroon are the only people who must resist forced marriages it's the same group worded differently ok so your view of view is that the additional four groups that you propose are really the same group that the i j a tear down it's centrally yes so tell me why the i j a is turning it down was there well it was aired because the facts are very clear that the that only single childless women can be forced to be married and i j said well this wasn't really a forced marriage it was just a proposal right now and i miss i'm assuming that it's a forced marriage what's the evidence that the group is viewed as distinctive in in society in camera well societies everywhere distinguish between a married woman and unmarried woman we have we have words for them widowed bachelor week every society that i know of distinguishes between married and unmarried people who didn't your client also testified that she was subjected to right right particular disrespect because of her membership in this group right because two of her sisters could have also theoretically been married to the to the chief but they were already married and had children their own so they weren't they simply weren't eligible and i believe my client actually used that word eligible which suggests a rule if not written down at least an unwritten rule that this is the rule only single childless women may be forced to be married ok and so because she was  herself in front of the i j a let me ask it was a slightly different question has there ever been any claim that the persecution is simply on account of gender does not require a social group analysis specifically yeah it does actually gender is suggested as one of these so one of a particular social group in a matter of a coaster and so the analysis goes ok once you've identified the immutable characteristic in this case gender then you ask ok well what makes this person's gender in particular subjecting her to persecution in this case it's the fact that she was both single and childless so that's that's the social distinction or social visibility as part of the social group analysis where the i j a just either did didn't you know read the record enough for it understand her testimony well enough but she said it at least twice only single childless women can be forced to be married that answer questions i thought so at least enough for the moment ok very good i'll move on excuse me and so basically the board erred in not sending this back to the i j a when the but when the board had a chance to correct the issue you know the board knew that  client was on her own was pro se before before the i j and the i g offered only this one formulation of a social group by this point matter of w y c i believe had been issued or at least very close to it and the board is always you know harping in the churches are always harping on the immigration lawyers to clearly define your social group in any permutations thereof and the judge simply just only offer this one ok but that's what i'm asking from the beginning isn't says that this case needs to go back to a judge with the proper social group properly delineated based on the facts in the record and i'm not i'm not pulling this out of a country report i'm up on this out of a letter you know this is my client's credible testimony and i want to ask you about relocation before guess just before you set down as i understand the record your client says i was fleeing were in hiding all the time i was in there might be part of the country were his reach didn't extend i didn't see those is there anything in the country condition reports would suggest that it would be safe for her to relocate somewhere else in cameroon know that record as silent as as t particular issue but where it's not silent is the fact that she was living in hiding right she testified in the i j a founder credible right and i was just looking at the country condition reports sometimes they say there's discrimination against muslims in the north of the country but not yet south i don't see that here you know no and the record is silent as to that issue where it's not silent though is that women in cameroon are subservient to men and that is clear in the my client's testimony and in the country reports and so if she were to return she would be subject to the laws that say you know if you've been chosen to be a bride of a chief you must obey that edict now could she theoretically go somewhere else and maybe that doesn't happen well maybe but that's not the burden the burden is is it clearly possible she can relocate without any fear of anybody at least on this record if it went back to an  please the court my name is on the pickle and i represent the attorney general this is a case about relocation and because petitioner could relocate within cameroon that alone is dispositive here they were looking for her everywhere she went  honor so there's is she hiding because she can't go back to her hometown it just means i can never go back to my home but he also testified they were busy looking for her and she was kicked out of one cousin's home because they were afraid that they were coming for her and there's a lot in there about the difficulty of being elsewhere in kerala but she was able to go to school while she was there and live a practically pretty normal life she testified that there was no evidence that she wanted to leave until he asked her to leave i don't think there's anything in the record where she even suggested the actual conditions while she was at her uncle's were insufficient or dangerous and anyway she left she testified and she was found credible that the funds edict goes throughout the country that he had men looking for her to take him take her back to him to be his forced bride and that she had to relocate from place to place as she learned to people who are attempting to locate her that's that's pretty substantial evidence that relocation is difficult as well she speculates that they will find her no matter where she goes but there's no evidence to support that in the record and i think her testimony is evidence to support that in the record right and so in her factual assertions must be credited but not her speculation i also have a question about the convention against torture  claim it seems to me that the obvious result of her return would assuming that we don't agree with you on relocation is that she would indeed be forced to be wed to this person and that that would constitute rape which we have to find us torture so why isn't the can't claim what well because of the relocation so if you were to disagree that she was able to relocate it would have to go back to the agency to decide in the st instance whether that was torture let's assume that we agreed with her that she had demonstrated a likelihood of torturing for a charge a camera and if the government was either going to acquiesce or not interfere and who would be the burden to establish we look ation the burden is because there's no past persecution here and she never contests that there is never past persecution and the burden is on her to show you that there's a reasonable likelihood of future torture the burdens on her to show that there's going to her cat the burdens o believe so your honor i have a question about your previous answer you said if we think that they kept analysis was wrong we'd have to remount it i don't understand why because the b i explained the thomas it has to go to the agency in the st instead only if we have an if they haven't decided the issue and they have decided the issue we don't get to decide in the st instance but if they decided and explain themselves and they were flat out wrong we don't remain we tell them they were wrong so i don't think there's anywhere in the record where they decided that that forced marriage is there is not torture they decided based on the relocation alone that was the only reason they gave and so if that reason is erroneous there aren't they done they didn't say in the alternative she wouldn't experience future torture but we don't know how the agency would decide the issue of whether forced marriage is torture so go rape is torture have they not decided that i believe so your honor but they have not decided if forced forced marriage is torn out by the by definition if you don't want to marry someone of don't want to have marital relations with a rape will occur it would have to go to the agency in the st instance so i couldn't speak to it beyond the scope of this opinion or i'm sorry this petition one of the points i wanted to make about the relocation is often the p i a s speculating about whether relocation is possible based on country reports or something like that this is an even easier case because she actually did relocate and she had done it for over a year where she wasn't found and she wasn't harmed during that time so her statute of limitations or something on this in other words if you're able to flee persecution for a certain period of time you've established that relocation is possible i don't see i mean it's not as if she moved someplace and sent a letter to the fon that said by the way i've moved to tucson i don't know how you can get me she's she's running during those three times to do this during this two year period i don't understand how that establishes that relocation is reasonably possible i don't think that there's a statute of limit limitations but there is evidence that she was able to relocate safely which the board credit weighed very heavily in this case that if you couldn't relocate safely and then we have a very different case so every time somebody runs away it can be that we've already established if they're not found if they can relocate safely well your honor the burden is on her to show that she couldn't recently relocated so that's why i was asking about the cat if she's shown it it's reasonably probable that she'll be tortured in the form of rape is it really her burden to establish that there are other places in the country she can go to so because she has not established past persecution in order to talk about past persecution i do understand your asylum argument i'm talking about your cat argument convention against torture if if somebody says i it's reasonably likely that i will be tortured of sent back to a place it is then her burden also to establish that she couldn't really ok said the border lied on the relocation i don't think they decided that it was a well thought that it was torture so we don't judge graber indicated and i think i agree with there that under our case law rape is torture forced marriage surely is rape so if she's established that who has to establish the possibility relocation so the relocation is part of the well founded fear persecution so you're still talking about persecution i'm talking about torture ok ok so it's still part of that well ok it would still have to go to the agency in the st instance  in that situation but the burden would the burden be on her to establish it or the burden be on the government to establish that you could relocate safely i think the burden is still on her but i can't say for sure i can't say for sure either which is why i'm asking you i think the burden is still on her but i would have to go to the agency to go through all that analysis in the st instance as the board ever decided distinct from this court that rape constitutes torture i believe that the board has your honor but again it would have to go to the board in the st instance for the forced marriage part of it ok and then the other point i wanted to make is that for particular social group she is not a stab so not only established that she can relocate she also has an established that she's not part of a particular social group was woman who refused to refuse the funds advances and that was found credible so there was evidence i don't think she ever testified that she was looked down upon by society she just said that she was looked down upon by the fine in his servants there's no evidence that the actual society and her neighbors and her peers thought of her as a distinct so sial group so it's just a problem of crude in this instance and again to turn proposes in her petition for view is much broader than any social group that she mentions before the agency so it is basically women who could be selected for forced marriage whereas before the agency they were looking at women who were selected for forced marriage and refused so it's much broader so it includes people who were selected for marriage by the fon and maybe wanted to marry the farm it also includes women who were eligible to be selected by my colleague a trick question unfortunately the cat regulations have no burden shifting language regarding wasn't my location and that's actually i've not kno b i erred in placing the burden on the petitioner to show the internal relocation wasn't possible but then reminded it to the board to reconsider quote the cat claim under the no burden shifting relocation standard rebuttable presumption that the fear of the danger exists throughout the country and it's the government that western but that presumption and as the judge miller hasn't asked me questions i want to give him an opportunity to really have anything else to say except that when my colleague brings up a spectrum of hiding i think she's kind of pulling that out of thin air that this court nor the board nor any case that i know of has suggested that there's a spectrum of hiding that coming to phoenix judge it's our pleasure especially when we come from a rainy climate so we appreciate the welcome