even if this case is to be remanded to the b o i to consider certain factual issues this court should first resolve the legal issues before it to determine the correct legal standards the b the b i should apply so we've had a lot of problems with what is a social standing maybe maybe a little different from those that compose the language thought it would never get in and it isn't an easy question now that we've complicated the issue and i'm just wondering whether we even get to that in this case she was never a prostitute she was i'm not sure i'm not sure there's evidence even if she was forced into prostitution the only thing she knows why she was in hong kong she thought she was working in a restaurant and woman says no you're in a brothel and she leaves there is just it seems to me the evidence is very slim on this record that she was would even be in that social group well fortunately your honor she was not forced into prostitution she escaped before she was forced to do any but you're assuming she's in a forced prostitution context and i'm just raising the question his record released sufficient here that that she was in that context when she herself cannot testify to it all we have been some woman that issue your honor and she was dropped off in a room and left for several hours and told by you know an older presumably older prostitute that she was in a brothel we don't know the only woman independent verification from an outside source that it was actually a brothel and and what happens is you're in the record that if he went back there there's mr wang would be able to find her no matter where she went in china and that the that the chinese government is allowing mr wang to enforce a prostitute what evidence of that is that the record well her family has received explicit threats from the same person who brought her to hong kong that if she returns to he would return her to hong kong and to the brothel and that your second question goes to the issue it would be unreasonable among the factors that you consider under that statute or the age that's the middle ties economic hardships that are assisted with relocation and i think would be unreasonable for her to relocate alone at her age a back she's going to be eighteen and perhaps nineteen why someone reasonable to think to think that she could not live alone in china if you can stay alone in the united states that that it's actually going to be staying with family members now in connecticut so i think it would be unreasonable for her to stay alone in the united states if you have family members in china if she does her parents or should anybody else besides her parents i'm not aware of any other family members other than parents isom that there are family members but i don't know of them  isn't your argument inconsistent with the fact that she relocated to hong kong that she wrote relocated to hong kong went to hong kong and she was alone for one day and fled but the plan was for her to go record your honor but there are it's not uncommon for peasant women from rural areas of china to go to hong kong and live in the dormitory provided by their employer and work and  kong and drop her off at a brothel would indicate that he's involved at least in the activities that the state department report confirms that these gangs are involved in which is trafficking it's a pretty things pretty big leap is that i mean the fact that he's the fact that he it that she fears will happen to her if she goes back to china she fears that she will either be punished by being beaten or killed or be returned to the brothel where she'll be repeatedly by mr wang i'm sorry by mr he's a member of the black society as you are and there is ample evidence that the local authorities in china and the police do turn a blind eye to these kind of activities and you know with regard to her ability to see if the ample evidence that in the state department report your honor it states that there are no specific evidence in this case you're talking about the state department report which also says you're trying to crack down as it does that are trying to crack down yonder but the conclusion the report is that it's been ineffective and that there's still complicity by local officials and i think the issue for miss lind is that her only recourse really is to local officials officials and police she can't  directly to high government officials who may be quite sincere in their in their attempts to crack down but these attempts of any effect i think you counsel will give you one minute for model ok thank  you more please the court james arthur ray been with the justice department replacing the respondent was a case the board to the burden of proof in this case it was on the respondent entirely that if she had to prove not only that she was one she was persecuted too on account of a particular reason three by somebody that had the power to do that and for that she did not have the ability to relocate to escape the persecution in this case the board when it looked at the decision of the immigration judge it all they discarded his adverse credibility finding it did find three things one is that she was not persecuted on account of protected reason in in the board's decision they didn't reach those issues for a particular reason the board it seems to me is saying regardless of whether or not she's in a social class she hasn't proven in the board indicated that if we disagree and say we want to know the one know about the social class you're saying that has to go back just wrong but if we affirm the board on the alternative decisions then it wouldn't go exactly on that of those other two reasons  persons out there but she's simply not qualified or hasn't provided sufficient proof that she's a member of that class or if that quasi so called class even if it is a particular social  in your brief that was just for a man if you forfeited the second argument that on the basis of the board opinion we can deny the petition because even if there is a protect two the court has an independent obligation to review the the the decision regardless of what the government says even if the government when it did not believe this is what the government's asked well if that's the issue representing the government  yesterday and what i'm saying is that it's a gift i'm sorry i'm i'm just saying you're either had the government for what it's right to breach in this case but as we never submit or brief this court would still have to review the issues raised by disagree with the government of this issue needs to be sent back to the to the board i would argue that if they go if this is to be sent back to be that the scope of the remains should be narrowed such that they are applying the their analysis in accordance with the legal standards set out by this court and that is the decision by this court as to whether women who escape forced prostitution and china are members of a particular social group as a matter of law you want to decide that it is i that is not the board correct well we've been spanked before by the supreme court for doing precisely that believe we've been told that the