cases all four of them for the same reason that the particular social group in particular the prong about socially distinct the cases weren't analyzed in light of that new framework that came from matter of eve and  role in developing the record here in our jurisdiction at least the two judges asked a lot of questions and the questions that he asked were asked you know and his decision was rendered i way that shows that he hadn't read bach and he wasn't using the new framework and so as far as you know as it relates to his role in developing the record it was done under the wrong trial lawyer checked the analysis no no your honor we just brought it up as an issue on appeal that in his decision the i j a cited two cases rather than doing of the required fact by fact because the fact the whole factual part of the record is is wrong and the conclusion of the i j a is unsupported and it wasn't john and in case you didn't this case didn't get to avail itself of the that case and said there's nothing in the record show that the group articulated by petitioner is perceived considered or recognized by society as a distinct social group and then standard what what is it about the evidence that could lead to that conclusion your honor that that you know she you know in the interest of candor to the tribe you know it doesn't so it really doesn't support it  you would have to because the record was developed under a different frame are going to was also analyzed under a different framework you know meeting the requirements for social distinction and even the previous ocular visibility and from the perspective of the persecutor requires a lot of development in the factual record and if you're just helping it under the wrong framework there you're not going to accidentally come up with with with social distinction you know  conditions reports don't really address that so you have to get expert testimony or other types of scholarly works that address the group and it wasn't done because the cases were so new that the trial attorney didn't do it and the judge didn't even mention it in his analysis may i just wanted to mention two other things there's also a nd intervening case that changed the standard for nexus to one reason rather than one central reason that's from the  that the judge relied on and the v a relied on but our position is that in one of those cases that i mentioned the court cases that arose this year in front of the inside of this body the conclusion was that the that in the record that immigration judge concluded that the person that attacked the response not just in her was a police officer and there's also his own test are you are you are you talking about the statement her was threatened and also robbed by individuals identified as members of the police force that's right that's right your honor and something we feel like that takes acquiescence out of the equation because question all right well i guess i'll just if i may just reserve the rest of my time for about all unless anybody has any other questions ok thank you  subjected to arm by mexican officials and at best i think from your perspective the ambiguity they're finding wouldn't we be better remanding it i think there is i would agree that the ambiguity of the board affirm the determination that the respondent has not set forth a valid claim for protection against the convention against torture is enough for us to go back to the findings of the immigration judge even position should be required to change and that argument is supported by the b a a in in the case that actually that the department just decides which is an a and j g u we've in his brief that the reason that the the result of just an hour was targeted was because he was wealthy and so there is at least one reason that he was targeting is because of the all right thank you thank you counsel thank both council for their help organics the case just argued will be submitted