that group is also at issue and whether her membership in that group is one central reason for persecution we would never recognize a group isn't that a key distinction yes it is a key distinction i would respond and the immigration and nationality act provides that asylum seekers can be protected and bowl scenarios because it states that to win asylum they have to should demonstrate persecution that the government is either unwilling so government sanctioned would fit under that or aren't able to prevent and so in this here well as we've discussed in the briefs the social group would not include women who affiliate with gangs submit to gang of machismo culture what would not and how i states think every woman in the united states wants to date rape many today i would agree with that contention your honor and i don't disagree with that there's a lot of sense in that but i would posit that not every woman in honduras is in a situation where rape is imminent or that they're being targeted for that reason for of for example we noted in the brief and also the government commented that for example sixty five of the administrative record during a conversation with  judge this this topic came up earlier and so the government said in general this would amount two hundred women of income and i don't think there's anyone that actually supports or goes towards crime necessarily unless you're part of the gang i suppose and so gang affiliation or women in positions of power might not fit into this group and so delineates some now i would also say that there are other existing court precedents there's matter of a r c g for example were quite a while and women in domestic relationships would receive asylum protections if those relationships were abusive well virtually every guatemalan woman is in a domestic relationship as part of a family group and so that would be virtually every woman in guatemala potentially bigger than this because not all women are subject to threats of right your honor that is my best case as far as i'm concerned i believe that matter of distinguishing between a matter of kissing and this case is very difficult to and as the courts below have attempted to do so they've come to conclusions such that an immigration judge for example stated that hundreds represents recognizes rape victims as a social group but not attempted rape victims as a social group and so that would lead to the conclusion that had the risk the petitioners in this case been raped then they would qualify for asylum and i don't believe that that should be the law that appears as an abuse of discretion manifested contra law to me additionally woman so as they try to distinguish this case from causing those are the conclusions that they've arrived at and that matter of causing it makes it quite clear that i mean the social group yes your honor yes your honor i point to my reply brief where i included a chart that i had submitted to the i a e a well this is on page nine of my reply brief and i the immigration judge provided a summary of kissing and his opinion and i reproduce that here and provided a parallel of the petitioners case so basically the only difference in this case is that female genital mutilation was sanctioned by the government whereas rape is in theory punished in honduras though as a practical matter the record supports that it is not and so then it comes down to an liking there is no evidence that the government approves of rape but an asylum applicant only needs to prove that the government is either unwilling or able to prevent the persecution and in this scenario the government has proved able to prevent this persecution comes to nexus were we only need to prove that the persecution of the social group is one central reason for the persecution suffered now when they arrived i believe it was an april of tw fourteen pounded on the door one am demanded that she send her daughters out to play i would say that money and money came up that night this restaurant but when they demanded that she sent her daughters out to play that to me with no one would not have happened that language would not have been used had it been a houseful of boys so they would not have said send your sons out to play  there is virtually no other meaning that can have and then secondly after they took steps to prevent playing in quotations that is when shots were fired at the home which has to be passed persecution because in this court threat of death is persecution i mean shots fired at a home must also count to qualify we've maintained that persecution has been suffered as a result of their opposition to this kind of sexual threat respond to one issue that i believe is issue and that the court does need to decide upon and that the court must decide that come out to play had a sexual intent the immigration judge said that it's not clear without a further indication and the b i agree that a further indication was necessary yes i however in my view the judge let me address that briefly so first of all on the to be a particular social group has to be immutable particular distinct so nobody disputes that this group is immutable either due to gender or past shared circumstance nobody disputes that it's immutable when it comes to particularities the judge waffled on how he defines that so first he said the opposition an invasion can't be part of a social group however  it clearly is i mean a matter of opposition is part of that social opposition to the practice of female genital mutilation but additionally and i think this is an important distinction to make as well the judge stated he used as examples that opposition and avoidance refusal to join gangs has not amounted to a social and i think there's an important stink here so matter of a single opposition to persecution these other cases that the judge used to argue against this are not opposition to persecution opposition to join a gang joining a gang isn't per se persecution but opposition to being raped that's opposition to persecution opposition to female genital mutilation that's persecution so that's a distinction between the cases the judge used to rebut our contention that the group is particular and so additionally i would return to the fact that not necessarily every woman would fall in this group because not every woman in honduras is in a position where they would be a victim of rape those who are in a position where they would be a victim of rape i would agree most virtually every woman would want to avoid non consensual sexual contact i don't dispute that however given the board's other precedents matter of a single a r c g there are groups that would include virtually every woman in those countries and relevant societ yet why would we protect gender based violence there but not here i don't see a meaningful distinction and the lower courts did not make one either and i believe that's my time like yours thank you running thank you judge king good morning greg pennington on behalf of the attorney general i'll start with matter of a single because that seems to be where she's hanging her head on this case in addition to the government in tokyo kind of accepting the practice of f p m encouraging it almost as judge becker noted here there is no evidence to show that rape is actually sponsored by the hunger in government and it's punished pretty harshly as least according to the state arm reports but something that was also left out is particularity in the togo case it was one tribe in togo here as judge stacker noted it swallows all the women in honduras and the way ms santos tries to distinguish that is she says that well not every woman is in the position to be raped well that wasn't her particular social group at the agency and in the same way as in her opening grief she says well her particular social group also includes religious women who more culture that also wasn't the particular social group she proposed to the agency so she's in essence kind of demonstrating that her particular social group lacks particularity because she's starting to narrow it here in this court and that's just not something that she can do everything she has to present to the agency first in order to get her properly before this court so matter kissing is distinguishable as the agency  it includes women who are in a position to be raped as she was in the house that night so she's narrowing it and for particular social group to meet the particular any requirement it has to have narrow and definable boundaries and she is further narrowing it here in this court and i think that demonstrates that her group was overbroad before the agency and as the immigration judge held what is of aiding rape mean does it mean women who are in a position to be rape actually say no and run away women who avoid going out altogether is it women who testify in support of their abusers there's just there's too much there and it's just contrary to what the board in this court is required with have you know young men coming from one of the central american countries that are victims of crime they're victims of gang recruitment and when they don't submit to those gang recruitment requests they have their extorted or harmed and consistently the agency and this court have held that that's just that's not a basis for asylum and in order to have the agency's decision here overturned with regard to particular social group she needs to show that the agency's decision was manifestly contrary to law and how can that be the case when it's completely consistent with the board's pressed past precedents in this courts and i'm moving on from particularities there's also the issue of social distinction and for the for that the board looks to evidence of historical animosities toward certain groups discrimination laws and there's nothing in the evidence to show that women of eating rape have been particular ised in any particular way in the societ there is no evidence to show that society recognised as a distinct group so without meaning the particularities in the social distinction requirements her particular social group has to fail and if it fails there's no further inquiry needed  but if the court were to go on from there the other issue is nexus and here we have one no left at her doorstep that says that she was elected and signed by the m s there was no indication of what she was elected for but she surmised that it was to pay rent to pay some kind of extortion and one month after that note was left these men showed up at her door i guess to collect on that demand and when she said no  that's when they started to further threaten her and they fire shots as they're running away now the immigration judge held that there was no evidence to show that that was intent to harm her as a woman a feeding rape  and under us and i think that's where the petition gets a little confused here in saying well maybe that immigration judge erred saying that that saying we want to play with your daughters did not mean intent to rape that's not what the immigration judge of the board said they said that that was not enough evidence to show that that was intent to harm on account of a woman fitting rape so there wasn't that calls will nexus between the harm that was going on that night in her proposed particular social group in fact she didn't become a hundred or a woman of aiding rape until after that incident happened she didn't actually have bade rape until they hunkered down in the bathroom and started screaming and these men left so she would have to show that again the record would compel no reasonable fact finder could find that there was no nexus here and since she simply just hasn't done that and that was the past persecution issue if we move on to a well founded fear again she would have to show a reasonable possibility that these men or somebody else would target her as a woman of aiding rape again assuming that this is a particular social group as recognized under the act and the immigration judge said that she had met that burden and any reasonable possibility that she would be harmed on account of being a woman who invaded rape the only evidence shows that these men wanted money from her and that's the only nexus that is shown by the record  that's that's pretty much the government's case and here we don't believe any reasonable fact finder would be compelled to find that this is a particular social group and on top of that that the government agency didn't reach that but that there would be a nex so let me just begin with the idea that the judge said that they were not afraid the government just made that contention but i'll read from the record given the country conditions evidence regarding violence and sexual crimes against women this is from the immigration judge's opinion on three twenty three and the respondents experiences with unknown men banging on their door asking for a female to come out and play the court finds the respondents fear of persecution is objective reason so the judge established that there was fear of prior and future persecution so i just want to throw that out there the idea that rape is punished severely in honduras is laughable that supported by record of events the country conditions some or the department of justice  distinction in terms of the issue of the social group well he's saying the government is saying that we're changing our social and that is not the case as the court noted argument has been the same from the beginning so and furthermore even if we did change our argument legal issues are refuted no so the matter of whether or not this is yours yes your honor and and that's what we get to is that the judge said you can't define this by actions and we said well your honor i mean the immigration said judge said you can't define a social group by actions and while  women with a religious inclination they take pains to avoid much used in culture they attended family the family attended church together and when they confronted threats they prayed so these are people who with a strong moral compass who would take efforts and pains to avoid this particular form of persecution and then with regards to distinction again this is where the judge said that hundred society in his analysis with regards to distinction one hundred society recognizes victims of rape as a distinct group and yet victims of attempted rape are not that again would lead to the conclusion that they must be raped first prior to asylum being granted where that cannot be the log and the threat of persecution should be sufficient and these women fit into that group and then as far as nexus you know this court has recently the government mentioned how the immigration judge had stated that without more come out to play is insufficient this court recently decided and solve a lot of that it's unreasonable to expect a gang would articulate in a note all of the legally significant reasons that they would persecute someone i would posit that that applies here it's unreasonable to expect that a persecutor would stand in front of the door and say come on your daughter is up to play and by that i mean let me rape them for the following reasons and then before they fire their guns at the house before they run away we are doing this because you said no that's absurd and so you know that's in terms of nexus clearly they were persecuted because of their