squarely within this court's well established precedent that when an immigration judge fails to consider critical material evidence and to make adequate findings that decision must be revisited it is undisputed that gang uncontested evidence the immigration judge felt that mr potter meant to take had never been threatened that there is no evidence or any reason to believe his life is under threat and that the that he therefore falls within the general class of young hunder petition and vacate the decisions of the immigration judge and board of immigration appeals for at least three reasons st neither agency provided reason consideration or made adequate findings consistent with this court's well established body of law requiring that they do so indeed the record suggests that neither agency considered perhaps the most critical piece of evidence and misters a part of a two days i ninety five dollars application the affidavit submitted by his grandmother which declared in no uncertain terms that his life was threatened with death should he returned under us that piece of evidence was a sworn affidavit submitted after his uncle had been murdered and that piece of evidence along with many others troubling one but i think before we can get ten these kinds of issues we have to determine whether the board urged in finding that mr is a pot to a was not a member of a particular social group for purposes of the analysis and it looks to me like the particular social group that you have described in your brief before us is different from the one that has previously been described and so i wonder whether whether we have jurisdiction over this and if we do not have jurisdiction over th the st you can answer my st question then my nd question would be if we find that we do not have jurisdiction over this case then would the proper thing to do be to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction and then m reasons one while this while i can see this court may not have jurisdiction to consider his newly proposed particular social group in the st instance i think this court does have trust issues jurisdiction in line with precedents like tan  and others to recognise that where there are fun fundamental failures and then elsie's below due to a failure to consider critical evidence and to make adequate findings that this court should remain for further books proceedings quote because we are unable to seemed to me as i understand that you know abuse or torture or climbs under under cats are not limited to actions taken by the government but the were charged with seemed to me that the i j a failed to give reason consideration to what the regs require and that is looking beyond government action is that am i right about that i think you are right about that judge judge martin he will be persecuted by gangs and that gangs have incredible influence and under as to the extent to which the government is essentially acquiesced and its policing powers to the gangs and if that answers your question i'd like decisions i think below oftentimes the the there were different arguments for it presented to the board of immigration appeals into the court into the th circuit yet i think the court found that a failure to give recent consideration here i think that the failure to mention the grandmother's affidavit is crew is critical while this court has recognized that an immigration judge need not need not discuss every piece of evidence where an immigration judge fails to discuss or in any way explain a piece of evidence which contradicts his core conclusions then i think that that commands the conclusion that evidence was not considered or in the words of enter wadi did not enter his calculus whatsoever whether he was a member of a particular social group is a threshold issue i think it ultimately is a threshold issue as to whether he has a successful asylum claim i think here the including the particular social group offered by the initially by the imagery gratian judge and considered by the board member nations appeals i think for those reasons that particular social group needs to be reconsidered when this it if this case is vacated in remanded to those courts thank you and i'm happy to clarify because i you know if you have further questions in that area i would love to address them well i'm just trying to figure out how it could be how it could be to situation that we could send it back without getting to the particular social group issue i think this court has  really quoting tan quote should remand for further proceedings because we are unable to review the decision i think that's the case here the again the unreasonable reasons for the  at the immigration hearing and the immigration judge where the immigration judge kind of throws up a particular social group which he's basically already dismissed because he's already agreed with the government that that this was a parliament to take was not abandoned in just broadly groups and then to the a class of young people whose you know personal and religious values are at odds with those of the gangs that's not what this case is about i think for the sit for similar reasons those threatened but then goes on to say but they threaten to kill my entire family and now my entire family has problems i think that's an it's an entirely unreasonable reading of the record i think that the i nine thousand five hundred and ninety five dollars application hit the rest of his testimony and good morning may please import greg maddux counsel for the respondent the attorney general of the united states the board of immigration appeals would not recognize or otherwise be familiar with the particular social group that was proposed in petitioners brief pages tw rosenbaum your question is correct particular social group is the threshold issue in this case now that i understand with tissues argument is that apparently the argument is there are errors with respect to past persecution and well founded fear of future persecution and those errors somehow impact the particular social group analysis and therefore petition gets to present an entirely new particular social group that the board of immigration appeals and immigration judge never considered i think as we've cited in our brief they are distinct issues and particular mister mattoo take had different counsel than he does today i want to import it well you know thank goodness we have people that are willing to to help us but you know his he have any recourse now if the board of immigration pleas pills was inclined to deny the motion to reopen because it was untimely then he could come to this court with the petitions were reviewed challenging that terminations ok i mean i don't know if you've ever heard the expression about immigration case i've read this somewhere that it's you know people's lives are at stake so it's almost like dealing with you know death penalty cases in a in a traffic court context because we have such a volume of them and of course this is a i mean i worry about this young man because it was uncle's already been killed after he was removed from the united states so does know that this stuff works i mean i think we all know how it works though i mean his whole family is camped outside with guns to protect the house because we all know the reality of the situation so what can  do i mean you've said he can move to reopen if he gets it if he gets denied because it's not timely then he can appeal to us and that's it and that's it yes let me ask you this so it occurred to me that maybe there was some evidence that this young man had been trafficked it wasn't any evidence and i think as we said in our brief the immigration judge was attentive to the fact that he was a fourteen year old child he presented himself to the united states immigration judge insisted that his mother find counsel and immigration judge asked what was interested in wondering whether he had been trafficked and that was not followed up with what by his counsel well once threatened and it's you know we've got this in effect therefore the court doesn't have jurisdiction to review the new particular still should group that was presented in the petitioners opening brief to say you're going to get tired of hearing from him that i just had one of one more about the same question that i ask your colleague about  the cat claim is as i understand those regulations it can either be direct government action or government acquiescence and the agit only supposed to direct ability to internally relocate in honduras and the other dispositive issue on cap for the immigration judge was that there was no gross human rights violation so there's a pen a plea of factors the immigration the government but by the government that's correct but those are the dispositive issues for the immigration judge with respect to cat no past torture i believe the internal really relocate and no evidence against course of the idea of the he could internally relocate is contradicts his grandmother statement doesn't that mean there's some there's some statement in there that was not acknowledged about where either he or his grandmother address you know these people are looking for us everywhere and my country well his grandmother says he was threatened he was also moved from one location to his maternal grandparents house and then i got worried about him being there right after his those were the individuals out front with it with the that he was able to internally relocate in honduras which is one of the fines immigration judge made and there's no substantial evidence to contradict contradict that and then regression judge could accept his testimony over his grandmother's stay because again his testimony was that he was not specifically well meant i mean government doesn't hire the attorneys for the i know i know i know but you know you as as you know from doing this for twenty years the people that are here and don't know our culture think you know any lawyer a nd that's really not true right i can't add any more to that you're oh well thank you very much thank you clear procedural rule in cases like ten that where there's a failure to give reason consideration or to make adequate findings the proper remedy is to vacate and remain and so that those so that the case can have further consideration this relocation was not an option here he attempted to relocate the can the threats continue and then his family paid a coyote to smuggle him one thousand six hundred miles out of the country i think that overwhelmingly compels the conclusion that relocation