being that of a social group of women in general as opposed to in this case as you've just articulated the narrower group of if you call it a social group a woman who's married to i guess he was what russian what considered an i'm muslim so in that sense the group seems to be identified more by political and religious grounds which is somewhat duplicative if you then try and extend it to creating a some broader social group so where are you going with the her status as a woman i doubt would be helpful if you could clarify that she was really targeted due to her status as a member of the social group consisting of her family although there are references especially the department of state report that violence against woman women excuse me  just don't like your argument but if it was an argument that was presented before the immigration judge i was not an attorney at the time and i feel after reviewing this case that really she was a family can constitute a social group for the purposes of the rest i of one of the enumerated grounds but rather because she was attractive to somebody else who lived in the same building or somebody else happened to be a captain in the security service but nothing that suggests it's one of the enumerated grounds what's wrong with that conclusion second even if true the petitioner failed to demonstrate that she was raped on account of one of the grounds are protected by the i and i think now we do not and we do not concede that issue as credibility but i'd like to focus my remarks this morning on that second reason that is even if these rape allegations were true the record does not compel a finding that petitioner was raped on account of or read of a race religion nationality membership in a particular social group or political toward the woman's husband and the i j a seemed to both based on what i consider to be speculation about what a woman would do in those circumstances and the notion that he was really after her indeed she may have been a willing participant in this to affair as he called it hers she could i guess it's a male vijay but there was evidence that this fellow was involved in the arrest of the husband and as counsel counsel for the petitioner just said where he made derogatory comments about the wife's husband and he is an official  government all of those things sort of add up to at least some aspect of nick's motive well what do we do with well first of all just this year we would disagree with the premise that there is a lot of evidence in this whether or not here's affection for sexual attraction to the petitioner was colored in part or motivated in part the actions that he took by his animosity toward her husband well f nny thing one could argue that i mean along the i j he's analysis on a little track is that what he was doing was trying to get rid of a rival or somebody he was unhappy he had married this woman but the seems on the record there is a lot of animosity toward the husband in part because of his ethnicity or and or his religion but yes fisher our point on that is what in this record are a traitor to the country because you married him and now that he's out of the picture you're going to be with me the only time judge reinhart that captain arts union is ever reported to make any comments at all about the about the religion and ethnicity of the pictures yourself is in october two thousand after he had asked her out for a date and she said no and turned him down at that point she says that he called her husband's a nasty names and made fun of his religio do you think that the i very report considers the question of make a motive it seems to me that when the are very decides that the trapped in was sexually attracted to the predominant reason was of the founder sexually attractive i don't really see where the r j considered the issue of that you can be sexually attracted that can be the predominant reason for the really rape but it may be that a part of the motive is that she's more vulnerable because her husband is a muslim and that was when taken out of the issue wasn't considered by the i j a and he didn't make a ruling on it we would have to remain well i don't recall that this was specifically raised at the trial level but that is that there were two because of the normal male female attractive attraction of the violent nature but that there was evidence as she was trying to emphasize that it was more than just a little even of the fact she was trying to say  challenge i don't i thought i don't understand this is a very human circumstance and a certain degree of common sense she's saying that he raped me because of my husband in the city and his animosity based on that and the i j a clearly worked at this woman even commented on her flat after act when she was testifying as part of his demeanor finding that he was persuaded based on his  it's either it's an all or nothing proposition and it's i don't think it's changing the character of the case i think very much so that the guy probably was motivated by sexual perversion but just directed at the focus on the middle position which is yes you're right about that he was definitely after her but there was a reason for it in addition to just ordinary garden variety out of control male aggressive but from june two thousand until october two thousand they have friendly relations he never seemed to indicate that he was projecting and anti nationalist political opinion on when he may have term when he made  religion but then look afterward afterward and she describes the races are happening as she describes all of her interactions with him he never comes back to expressing more animosity about the husband's religion and ethnicity it appears to us