social group specifically he's defined his social group as witnesses to criminal activity who have cooperated with law enforcement or who are perceived to have cooperated so what's cooperation mean that's a rather vague term graber i would argue that cooperating with law enforcement is the act of facilitating working with law enforcement choose solve the crime to assist in the understand judge great question here but if we were to recount arise which which i'm not sure we can do but if we could it would be that your clients are afraid of being labeled a snitch and that he's faced retribution on account of his testimony with law enforcement that's the whole stopped to ask directions to you know f like he rode him he was seen talking to them i could be perceived as a cooperator so why or why is that be aryans conclusion that that is overbroad group with what specifically happened to your client what the b r you have to do with say to this proposed group a real group under our standards so we can't just look at what happened to  and what we're trying to state in mr floors matter is that he was he's the member of a group that has been victimized and has and has  remedy that by going to the police going to the law enforcement now are you of the words not there but when numerously cooperation or we expected something more than just the police's move back and you move back to some substantial cooperation substantial cooperation and resolving investigations or assisting investigations of criminal activity i  mean what sorts of things can we permissibly sort of infer from the word cooperation i mean i'm i'm pushing along the same line of judge greer's questions i understand your honor i would argue that simply stating that i went to the police police station and told them would probably not be sufficient however and mr floors this case he actually made a police report it's in the record the police report that he made through his stepfather he actually took a substantial step he didn't just go to the police and say or stop a police officer on the street he actually went with his stepfather to the police department made a formal report the police one would presume that the police are going to investigate that situation so i would argue that he has taken substantial step not just simply stated that i've been victimized i would agree case law makes it clear that one has victimized as not of the social group however here he's taken that step to report to the police and subsequent to taking that st the eighteenth street gang members approached him in the city of san miguel and were aware of that and where where that he took that st easily identify mr floors as group as those individuals who have been victimized by gangs and every ported to the police even in agency cases such as w g our society need not be able to easily identify who is a member of the group but it must be on account of him reporting the incident to the police classify some as a distinct particular social group this matter if we were not to expand the definition of social group in the way that you know i think you're trying to harm that he fears is based on that he also fails to define a cognizable particular social group based on this court's precedent the board's precedent and for those reasons that the government would urge this court to  the decision specifically referenced the fact that there is a salvadoran law that grants protection to witnesses individuals who have come forward have testified in court there's no evidence on this record that someone in  petitioner situation would receive the same protections the requirement for a particular social group includes that that social visibility it's not simply does the gang see this individual it's does society salvadoran society you this as a group and so the the government's position is that the filing of a police report albeit by his stepfather does not qualify him as a member of  to that method of their identity being discovered i understand your point i think in this case we're lacking a record that would support that ultimate expansion of enrica cerebus to the situation in this case here you  have certain facts are disputed the police report is filed later on there's an indication that somehow the gang found out about the police report being filed right that's visibility to the gang but visibility to the gang does not you are i think i was focusing perhaps of the very first part of what you were reading which is the ocular visibility requirement where it is not a requirement for someone to be able to be recognized on sight it's the perception of in this case salvadoran society that and weakest rebus case discussed and i'm not going to read the court's decision to you but the my recollection from the decision was that it was that along the lines of there could be no greater recognition by society of social visibility salvadoran society recognizing that group in the passage of a law to protect witnesses to ask don't have that situation here it's not there again from the record that simply report a police report would produce the sort of social visibility that's required to qualify as a particular social group in addition your honor the claim fails in this case because as as the immigration judge in the board explained the harm that was faced was due to the gang resistance not the and that's the one central reason language that applies in the asylum context not that the gang resistance the overwhelming reason for why mr whether petitioner was faced harmon fears harm so his claim fails on two levels first its definition of a social group second its is the harm that he faced and fears honor even if that were to constitute a social group the court would not find that it would be one central reason for any problem have in the past and most of those problems a not support membership in a particular social group now they just took a left turn in the second half of that sam's and didn't say that it was not a set a central reason filing the police for if they don't they're going back to saying well there's we don't we don't agree with the definition of the social group i think there is branching off i'm not going to diagram in the sense you are but i think when you look at what the immigration judge said it is specific it does specifically address or you will get subject to the court's questions ok thank you thank you visibility was looking towards the persecutors themselves subsequent to that the this court as well as the board has issued cases since just think decision by the judge in this case in two thousand and thirteen have issued multiple cases further clarifying that standard and this matter petition would ask for that opportunity to further supplement the record as to the view of society in this case  with regard to the harm that response that petitioner suffered he would also ask this court to consider the fact that he was harmed her at least threatened with harm subsequent to the recording of the incident to the police and filing of the police report when their helpful arguments flora's girl and now submitted for decision