one of the things that i think concern the immigration judge and what i'm asking about is that there's never a discussion by anybody of this fellow or card or the rationale or any of the other people that she mentions and the immigration judge asked for corroboration in that regard but i'm not finding that any any of these affidavits that were submitted can you show me specifically where that appears iris of the affidavit is even from the family members do not mention ricardo by name if that referred to him as her husband's enemies or the gangs generally and there is actually no requirement that an asylum application has to give the exact name so her persecutor an order to qualify for asylum but i also want to know that almost two years before dish or had her merits hearing before the immigration judge she had a credible fear interview and that's when she actually mentioned my name several times or fifty of the record she identifies ricardo as her husband anything in mister the dolls affidavit that corroborates that i mean the enemy could be anybody while your honor her husband's affidavit does not name or cardo but it refers to him a mrs emitted from her family members she submitted affidavits from her husband and her brother in law elder in addition to letters from her mother in law and sister in law and again these these documents discussed claim because of death threats all high as pastors accused then and there clearly based very clearly targeted towards her based on her relationships were her husband given that they specifically referenced her husband's name bases that she is now seeking asylum that is based on his ruling based on his membership and his brother's family and so on there is as our family is in great danger from my brothers and in these especially his wife and their children because  know that hurting them would really hurt my brother these are just some of the many instances in which these documents addressed nexus and the humans underlying condition explained in finding that petition i did without specifying exactly what evidence you was ripple he was seeking or making a finding on why there is such evidence was reasonably available and this is in direct violation of the court's recent decision and when bora and also its earlier immigration judges requirement that her husband testify in person is also reversible error i want to be clear and say that we don't need her husband's testimony to corroborate for nexis given that the received on the basis of her relationship her husband are on their own enough to entitle her to asylum because we have pastors in houston that is clearly on the basis of her relationship to her husband's and  requiring the husband's in prison testimony you know gratian jones died was actually seeking provocation for an issue that is not relevant for next this immigration judge makes several statements indicating that he's confused about who has to show reason that your husband isn't here and the answer given was well he's he's in the country illegally which would be true in almost every case where they're looking for a witness but it seemed odd in this case where  they live in the same city where the proceeding is taking place the immigration folks obviously know where they live because they send notices to their home and  from her family members he said that wasn't going to know because she needed to submit unspecified independent objective evidence of access when she's inactive or her husband you said that wasn't good enough because the husband had to come testify in person but he like here with cost at least in part by the familial relationship just as the court found there once the right question is asked and that is why it was being targeted the conclusion is quite clear whatever that gangs motives for targeting her family titian are was targeted because of her membership in that amply and that is the same thing that is true here and your ideas i would point this court to the immigration judge the  and her son in order to try to get her husband to come back so they could kill him and the immigration judge also found credible position or system only that other members of the very same particular social group the same family she only had to show that membership in her husband's family was at least one central reason why she was targeted instead the immigration judge characterized the bio she faced as general criminal violence by private actor but in doing so it is essentially ignored the at least one central reason standard stating that a person is the target of general criminal violence by private actors does not mean as a matter of logic that they were not also criminal violence because of her membership in her husband's family and your honor at any violence by non state actors could be targeted as general criminal violence by private actors the border also aired here by ignoring that the immigration judge was plainly not applying the particular social group analysis and nexus requirements properly he characterized claims that subsidiary to her husband saying it's your husband who has the primary a and that's simply wrong as a matter of immigration law the i n a gives petitioner a direct claim as a member of a particular social group the judge also told misery to derek that what he cared about was not you know why is the gang targeting relationship is at least one central reason why she was persecuted not the sole reason not whether ken the violence also be characterized in some other way like this john general criminal violence and not why was the family targeted and your honors this is not the st time that the board has made this mistake in the hernandez tried to hit case well i think it is beautifully on point with no change in the law in this regard rather this court has had to correct the board again and again on this particular social group your honour's this court should not do that here we explained in our brief why that why the dictator from matter a belly a that suggests that average families will not qualify as particular social groups is wrong as a matter of law that is including because this court has repeatedly held otherwise in a line of cases that includes most notably the crest in my parents decision and this court set that again decision and hold that petitioner was persecuted on account of her membership in a particular social group consisting of her husband's family thank you your hon testimony but ringback you know if you need to give us a little bit of a kind of flesh on the balance here so we can understand what i'm saying i mean we've got a lady here who testified very specifically we have family members who were murdered so what what was necessary to maintain that her husband had to come in in order for her to prevail the few responses your honor i agree that she did that document the deaths of the out of all the declaration she introduced only one mention ricardo and even then a woman wants her husband could have testified the i j a didn't say that the husband absolutely had to testify but the petitioner kept saying that she had no personal knowledge about whether ricardo was the one behind all this she said it was all what her husband was telling her and her husband did some of the decoration but again it doesn't mention are part of even one so the husband could have testified and provided some backup they are all operator story the petitioner mention that a i think kind of as a theoretical matter your honor it wouldn't matter if they could identify that it wasn't back someone who's behind it all i'm not saying she had to identify a specific person but the point is kind of twofold she does identify riccardo that story the whole time and she can't cross rate that particular aspect but also if you can't confirm that at least the same persecutor who's actually doing all the us then there's a lack of cooperation that your are otherwise it's no different than being the victim to several seemingly unrelated crimes that everyone kind of assumes is it what it is chalked up to the same person whether it's a car or someone else so it's got to forward your honor in this case i think that  target and her family is the target and we've got the dead relatives you know people being murdered why isn't that very strong circumstantial case it seems to me you're asking for for direct evidence when when happens to be random game by lots or other violence on affiliated then we can't say that she's actually being targeted because of her protected status not her so i think that's why it was so important especially given the way fish her friend her case for her to come forth with evidence after that that's pretty compelling and she claimed that your honor again that was something that was a crime rate at her husband remember a list of the same story kind of copy and paste and has decoration on the sacred heart know what was behind it or anyone else i horrible to her d because we want to try to get your husband back into the country it was no question that everything is right it was never framed that somebody is out to me i don't know why the why was always connected with her come in and say yes this man is after me i didn't have to be your husband i think you would have been an excellent source and that's what the i j a says your honor that the husband was the source of all the information or almost all the information and the petitioner testif i've been an excellent source i mean a just as an aside i think perhaps the husband could have come in by the dio or some other way we don't know for sure but it's not necessary that the husband testified that that is the whole reason the petitioner lost there were other bases just listed as the ways that she could corroborate her claim as i said declarations that actually talk about more specifically who the people are to show that there actually is a scheme to attack her husband's family as opposed to this being of an affiliated unrelated with a grain of salt and that's what this court held in saying so i think that's what you was relying upon your honor and kind of back to the point of crop aeration and a little bit on the point of next us there are several places where fish are herself a talked about that she was how speculating as to who was behind all this she had said it to fifty three that she doesn't know exactly whether ricardo was behind everything at two hundred and twenty six she says that she's not basing it on anything that her father in law's death was caused by her husband come in your honor that's right then those are the things she could have had to bolster her in a high g says that he generally believes the petitioner but he wants more evidence to back that up i think what the i g is saying is that the petitioner herself genuinely genuinely seems to believe that we're cardo and his gang is behind all this but there are some logical gaps year that don't quite explain why ricardo would actually be the one or his gang would actually be the one behind it all and that's why he wanted to cry operating  act allows him to do and then as we've discussed additional wasn't able to come in with anything more specific and on the the question of kind of the gaps and her own testimony she had mentioned of course that she had never been injured by ricardo or his gang she said during her asylum interview for fifty three but they never threatened me and at two hundred and thirty four from the immigration judge she said perhaps they were referring so there's the crop aeration issue that we've discussed and the the facts that i just mentioned to i think more to the next issue of whether there is actually a tie to the family here or of course the osbournes mother or brother or and sister all still live in sure and that's just not the kind of compelling evidence that would be required under the very heavy standard of review in this case ron and i don't mean to diminish the crime and the violence that her husband's family has been subject to i just i just think the immigration judge and the ira had enough evidence to support their conclusion that there wasn't a crime or asian or ricardo for the scheme for the gang of this all the confusion and that resolves asylum plan drawn are there are a couple points if i could and i did want to address briefly based on arguments that my friends made on the other side on the one central reason sassed your honour's the b s a did quote the proper test even the husband doesn't seem sure that this is what's going on it's kind of just trying to keep the testimony on point focus on that issue and it was the same of another point that up my friends and mentioned that i just said he was interested in why ricardo and his men were targeting the affidavit and come away with the conclusion that it could possibly have been all random acts of disparate violence that is completely inconsistent with the affidavits with her own testimony ultimately it doesn't matter if the guy was led by a guy named ricardo or not it was a gang that was targeting her because of her relationship to her husband and she did have the personal knowledge of why she was being targeted which is the key point here in regard to both corroboration and the nex issue itself you know my colleague for the government to try to put out this list of statements where she admits she doesn't know things she admits i don't know you know i don't have direct firsthand knowledge of who murdered my husband's father and brother as you know they didn't leave notes by the body but what she does know is that she got two notes at her house meanwhile it was she was in hiding at a relative's house and not staying there in order to avoid meeting the same date she gets to know that her own house that she that ricardo directly sent mr reed and there is the text messages as well saying that he was going to kill her and her son to get the husband that that is really all that is needed to substantiate her claim which is based on her connection to her husband's family your honour's i'd like i'd also like to point out that contrary to what my colleague from the government just said the immigration judge did not make the finding that's required under way or that there were some corroborating evidence on the next issue that was reasonably available and that mr didn't provide he didn't identify something like for example you should have given me the notes he didn't say that he you know asked her why don't you explained that she had not kept them he didn't question that or say that's what i mean it was a very general statement this separate conclusion that the husband should have corroborated his own written testimony by appearing in person to testify doesn't fill that gap in any event the husband could not have testified about those notes those threats that she personally received as to what they said and why the gang was targeting her he wasn't there he was already in the united states at that point in short your honour's the judge was seeking corroboration on the wrong issue here he wanted to know why petitioners husband was targeted quite distressed husband to come in and explain that that issue is legally irrelevant again it all goes back to the judge was not asking the right question and finally i want to briefly address the fugitive this is i don't know if my colleague brought it up your arse an argument that is made in passing is not an argument applies under the precedent out there on this which varies from circuit to start so your honor is you know even the government says this is in any event just an equitable doc grand this is not a case where the court is compelled to apply and it would certainly be an equitable to do