but in the military and how the family was prejudiced and and persecuted and why mr a mugger was actually persecuted on account of his family's membership in the military he should have had an opportunit disputed that he had family members in the military as you're describing my understanding was the board ultimately was not convinced about nexus perhaps all those i will agree but also nexus could so could you speak to how  i'd like to bring you back to judge free lance question what actual evidence did was presented that there was a nexus between this supposed cognize of all social group and the harm as opposed to his family was affluent he was a member of a rival jack everybody in the neighborhood at his sister might have testified i might be misremembering this but his sister testified well you know everybody somewhere where was her testimony that she believes that she would i think it was described as attempted rape or regardless of whether it was an attempted rape or rape both are obviously very serious well it's a little of him you know and i think i can understand some of the frustration i mean is this case is one in which every time i mean this has been going on for years and he should be entitled to really you know it goes up and he comes back down and then he's got yet another reason so it wasn't discussed before and i think that's why the  case he asserted that he was a member of a particular social group on account of his family if their relation with the military and that the gangs were very much opposed to people who lived in this area whose family they only lived there because of guys where he lives they didn't they didn't assault people they didn't commit burglary of course that's not in the record it was never brought up in the record but the other gang that good afternoon and may it please the court greg mack for the respondent the acting attorney general let me i mean the court of course has my routine work that is i'm word brief so let me try to go through a few of the petitioners claims the st was  the immigration judge did not allow the petitioner to testify with the court goes to page three hundred and nine of the record he was not on the witness list which itself was late only his parents were on the witness was so his neither his sister nor about whether the new particular social group should be advanced in their gut they got into a discussion i believe with respect to social distinction which recalls upon a applique can't provide evidence of what the society perceives about the the  proposed particular social group and the immigration judge was questioning well how can this petitioner or even his parents i guess testify about something involving peruvian society and so the immigration judge was right to be skeptical about an applicant who hasn't been in peru since two thousand testifying what peruvian society perceives with respect to social claim so as judge bennett pointed out the evidence that was sought to be admitted was late immigration judge clearly set out a deadline to file evidence of this evidence came in late with respect to the rape allegation and with respect to the peruvian national police chief bill is just six office evidence that's just late evidence and i would simply say that the orderly and fair prosecution and defense of claims before a tribunal requires a judge who knows what the claims are make sure the parties know what the claims are sets deadlines to avoid surprises and here's the evidence and immigration judge can insist on an orderly and fair process and it is omitted evidence that was late but there are statements that are concerning on the record here about whether the judge was biased and i'd like you to do for example why it was appropriate or why it is concerning that the judge said position your honor with respect to his role at the immigration court level level his arms are too short to fight with what the department of justice does to does before the court of appeals that's his expression of frustration if you will with respect to whether and how we saw to remap before the court of appeals but he had no authority to do anything about it that was his job to deal with the below and he does actually deal with all of the particular social groups as well as the board d so the board can take care of any bias there because i jam both i join the board and discuss all of the tutor's social groups that he was put forward so there's no prejudice with that with respect to that and then in any event the ultimate question of course is next is which petition or certainly can't and hasn't presented any evidence to show blaming kissing her well he's not blaming petitioner he's holding petitioner's feet to the fire with his back to what do you mean you're bringing a new claim in here and exactly what are the parameters of this claim and here's this deadline to present evidence of what your particular social group is because i'm going to hold both parties to account because not just additions entitled to due process the government is entitle to process and at page one hundred and twenty three the record the i g asked how the department of homeland security supposed to that district court judges in concerned have considerably broad discretion in the manner which they hear the cases before them particularly where the issues were actually was all to by the immigration judge and the board with respect to particular social groups and then on the ultimate question of nex judge can blow off steam with respect to how is this case before me and how and what are the issues before me then sets deadlines and says well bring the evidence in i'll hear it and i'll make a resolution that's what the immigration judge did here so  military and police officers approved where threatened by shining path july two thousand and sixteen is the briefing and evidence deadline is set for november is set and then we have counsel withdrawing all of his other particular social groups of the full and military families youth at risk of targeting by gangs and those who live in prosperous neighborhoods but in any event the board in the united states to deal with all the particular social groups and so that none of them are cognizable for right or the right for reasons related to immutability and particularity a nd social distinction and i think that again gets back to how is but just an error on remand to the immigration judge going to prove up social distinction here when they have to show that society perceives the groups that are presented to them as confidential confrontations with rival gang members and his father said it best there's poverty and crime in peru so on this record the evidence does not compel a conclusion that petitioners eligible for asylum in withholding the removal and bottom there was no anim directed at petition because any protect a characteristic with a speck to bias and due process violations alleged by a petitioner it's clear in this record that evidence was submitted late the witness list does not have petitioner or his sister on it and the immigration was dry to foreclose evidence that came in late if there's i mean again the court has my thirteen thousand page brief on the subject i think i've tried to respond to the points raised by petitioner about not having the ability to testify but again the testimony in the speech about the testimony was going to be going to be about trying to prove a social distinction and a case where petitioner had not been in peru since two thousand and let me just conclude with the the the rape allegation here the rape allegation was that he entered the united states in june of two hundred and forty one thousand nine hundred and nine in little fear of a rival gang yet the next year in two thousand he returns to peru and then comes back to the united states and in two thousand and six files an asylum application with no allegation of rape he's twenty five years old at that particular point and apparently on the eve of the hearing in november of two thousand and sixteen his counsel is told by petitioner that there was attempted rape by the r course will how his evidence supposed to come in this light so after the evidence for a deadline and after he had an opportunity file an asylum application and in two thousand whether the record starts a and thirty two there was a whole hearing in two thousand and seven about his asylum claim and apparently he was raped in two thousand so that evidence should come out at that particular time so with that i'll entertain any questions the the court has are all just conclude