ordering oral argument to address to the board of immigration appeals continuing failure to provide a functioning consistent standard that would allow us to assess asylum cases that are based on membership in a particular social group in other words it's simultaneously trying to squeeze in concepts of nexus and on account of and i'm even crudes element of whether or not a government can control what is you don't want to take that out of context utilizing the rest of the elements of the refugee definition and again so putting everything into the yes gene analysis is death and the death threats and so it's not the same harm but but more importantly it's the next step of the analysis of not part of the same analysis and you separate it out  require some sort of play on there to be added to the particular social good test the board claims that the social ascension in particular tests are necessary struction on the particular social group definition but this court demonstrated through  i think there are a number of things that are around with that your honor one of which is the way the test has been defined by the board defining the term social distinction and particularities these are very difficult because each case comes up difficult  it's focused on the wrong part of the test now on the one hand the board could provide clarity about what constitutes a mutable characteristic that is one that someone should not be required to change so for example if you are a former lawyer is that a here in screening out she says that are not meritorious asylum claims that are simply based on an endemic generalized criminal violence because that if you have it in that's really based on random violence you are not going to be able to establish that you were p person doesn't comply with the targeting so for example if you are targeted for extortion and you say you know i'm not going to paper no i can't pay the you oppose or resist the prosecutor demanding that extortion the sub's targeting is an account of that past act of resistance which is different from the initial reason that the prosecutor may have targeted the individual believing that they had money and i think that's a critical distinction and that and every piece that doesn't want to get asylum merely establishing that you're a former member of something does nothing for you unless you can prove you'll be targeted for that reason and you can meet the other asylum elements so saying that i'm a former lawyer doesn't get me anything unless the government starts to persecute from my bias and that's where the excess really doesn't work in the me and back quite even pointed out that they've got the perspective of the prosecutor might be most critical here because it could be many situations where society in general is not aware of this particular group it's only the prosecutors who decided to target the script for one reason says well we didn't need it that way and that helps with a couple of other problems clarify what we really mean because we're strong to try to surround the issues here as to what particular organized around the principle of persecution but it's not it on it's face it's not supposed to cover just persecution on account of any reason it's only supposed to cover persecution on account of protected grounds race persecution that would not be a basis for asylum and this court and the board really everyone is agreed that ordinary crime is not supposed to be a basis for asylum that's clear starting out w exactly you're getting an important point and that is that even you it's too stupid to say that crime is now not covered because crime could happen because of these protected grounds so the question criteria to find where the group contrary to the birds previous holdings and you thought the board had not explained the reason for the change and in the b g the board turned its attention and  persons doing the persecuting see a particular social group but is it necessary recognised by the society as a whole for example most societ whole probably wouldn't focus on engineers who do work in colombia but particular people with whom with him for might the prosecutors might so why can't you say that from their eyes they put together a particular social group circumscribed limited that society rule doesn't know much said the reason why it needs to be vacant society point of view is because there is the point here is to try to distinguish particular social groups question i don't want to get ahead of the board because that work hasn't really addressed but they kind of talk about it and gee they said if the government released these people as a group then the society is going to i mean the government is a big a society and if the government focuses on a group they example like i think employees a bit turn in general or something then it's very likely that they would satisfy such a distinction because whatever the government thank you again as council press comment about looking at the wall let's talk about ordinary crime and the idea that in the us it means one thing in the rest of the world it means another thing they  through the solutions and that's also one of the reason why i'm saying one of the things we ought to do is pull out particular social group from these other element because i'd think other elements in the ron is nexus which is only accountable and the second is this concept of society control where governmental control over the prosecutors one of the interesting thing that i found from the government run that as a thought exercise to say if we were talking about the colombian government during the summit of the a tad and a power family ride would say about whether they were targeted whether they were at all because it was planted with some knew about a case that there was social distinction social identification otherwise why would you have a kidnapping report that provided you with  anything more