j himself granted this case when he said that he could not find an anti religious motivation because instead as the judge resumes quote the gang was apparently objecting to the respondent activities of trying to rehabilitate you that's on page fifteen of the decision i think thirty seven of the transcript but we think your honor that when he was making that pronouncement he failed to notice that the respondent petition was doing those activities because of his religious beliefs and it was part of his religious activity he was trying to prevent young people from losing their lives to the gangs in el salvador and he did those actions because of his beliefs we also believe your honor that the matter should be read man did for additional analysis of two particular social groups one of which the judge himself reviewed and that was basically the potential social group of former gang members who have distanced themselves from the gangs and in the judge's decision he again stated the gang was attempting to quote enforce their code of conduct and punish him for that infidelity to the gang unquote and again your honor we believe that that is a basic statement of retaliation because of his membership or former membership in the gang that he was an infidel to the gang and that is why the government i mean that the government that is why the gangs have been persecuting the petition now of course your honor this circuit has not ruled yet on whether or not former gang members  membership can be a particular social group although the issue really wasn't completely reached in that decision it's still left open the possibility we would submit your honor that it would be peepin with nd circuit for the petitioners claim for religious persecution but it is also we think a socially visible group and a particular group individuals who are working on salvador to rehabilitate youth we clearly know who is in it and who is not in the government may argue that not everyone knows that he was working in el salvador to rehabilitate you that's or to save you from the gang that is not the key issue the issue is whether or not the the society as a whole considers these folks as a separate group and whether or not perpetrators of the persecution would consider them as a separate group and clearly the latter that they certainly would the situation in this case your honor is that the society of a sovereign certainly is aware of people who are trying to prevent young people from joining the scourge of their country which is gangs just to say no there are groups of people out there  abolitionist newspaper in philadelphia their neighbors may not know that one of their neighbors was doing that and was an abolitionist but clearly the society in question knew that there were people who were trying to bring an end to slavery and if the pro slavery pope saw him distributing copies of the literature or another abolitionist paper and a card better the individual that would be persecution on the basis of their that person's membership in a group of abolitionists likewise it is clear that if somebody is trying to keep people out of the gangs and actively working against the gang and but yet we are still left with the fact that the board never determined whether or not he testified credibly so if we acknowledge that their decision without getting to an adverse credibility find the means that he did testify credibly it would appear that that matter should be remanded for further analysis as well because clearly he did state that members of the this social group of people opposing  within the country and i'm not sure i saw that i mean it seemed to me that your client who i recognized was pro se for part of his proceedings before the agency was advancing a religious claim it then morphed into a social group claim but it was unclear to me where there was any evidence that it was specifically the social group not simply  former gang members but people opposing individuals joining gangs and i wasn't sure i saw either where he claimed that to the agency or where he tried to demonstrate not been held to at least in the court of the seconds or even if we were to agree with you that the i j considered former gang members trying to discourage membership in gangs  your honor i have to review the record again but i do believe that even the judge held that it looked like they were acting in that capacity because  the motivation but i still i'm trying to see what would what would have made particular social group can be comprised of individuals who possess some fundamental characteristic in tom and which serve to distinguish them in the eyes of a persecutor or in the eyes of the outside world in general now that is th something that they would recognize if their actions are against him because he's not showing fidelity to the gang then clearly in the eyes of the persecutor former gang members can be  just the question is the alleged religious persecution but petitioner way that argument there's no substantial discussion about that in his opening brief there's not even any substantial talk about these other areas that opposing counsel has raised is part of a shifting mass of particular social groups that we talk about in our brief some of them  sufficient to carry the burden on a social group to show that the oppressive group recognizes the social group it doesn't because society is a large is an cone case and i also want to say that the reply brief did specifically talk a great deal about the religious persecution claim and it was also mentioned in  the initial brace and that we did not brave that and in the reply brief we made the basic argument that if his actions the fact that the government counsel here is saying we don't have to worry about that well that's not clear from a review of the board's decision they put his testimony in doubt and without a formal finding