be a majority of the population you know better but when you then try to come up with a social group that is defined as unable to leave and part of the reason you know to leave is it being persecuted then you get into this problem of the first day of the persecution they weren't a member of the group until they were persecuted they have they all have at least one thing in common and that's gender or square and that you've established that if we decided that that was the relevant social group then it would seem to be the next question but you could at least argue that you did  and now we're going to get into persecution motivation nexus and so i my question would be if it's not exactly judge parents question did you get into a church question well if they did you would did you also establish next this perhaps rather you were trying to define a social group but it it occurred to me that the that the government's on i thought quite reasonable circularity argument  does then beg the question well what if it's not defining a social group or is it defining persecution is defining motivation and and nexus and so can you win even though you try to define the gro constitute persecution being a reason in other words the difficulty is that as i understand it in the way that the genius presented it is dead on since it's a general thing that got you into the group was not having been subjected to the horror that would count as persecution and hence the and the problem here the government has identified is that able to leave because of the breadth of the category could include some forget those names as i understand the record there does seem to be evidence in the country reports of a countrywide those two reports each alleged a threat to kill you know my right that they are captioned attempted homicide or something like that and in my right the record shows that as far as we can to show and i guess as i read the i j a is opinion i was having trouble understanding what the idea is a count of that aspect of the record was devoted to conclude that they were willing and able to address the problem general apparatus for dealing with these domestic violence or some crime or some persecution but that in the particular case when there are reports filed of the type of offense and no investigation is done in response to example of a local instance and i follow what do we do then is the authority that says we look only at the sort of geographic window that's relevant they are to those particular incidents or be suggested we have to that i thought we have case others as with respect to inability it has to be an inability of a current beyond the kind of inability the old legal system suffer from it being able to be a hundred percent perfect and preventing crime from occurring  just because that particular crime was committed and they didn't find the perpetrator doesn't show that they're unable to solve the problem any more than the fact that crime continues to occur all over the world shows that fact of persecution and retaliation for actions they took against their persecutors and then what do you do what you do with the shit i don't see with the p a has dealt with prior to this with the issue of that the time of the first persecution person is not a member of the group that i can understand the logic of this internally to the question of whether the social group being not able to leave can be defined in a way that doesn't make it circular everything you say logically tracks for me but what then starts to happen is necessarily unable to leave takes on a meaning in which certain grounds for being unable to leave must be ruled out right away as you run into the problem so you've explained how it's not necessary to improve the kind of place he is talking about because we could provide other grounds on which we avoid that problem but that the problem that arises is when we get to is dependent on case specific determinations each time what was the reason why you were unable to leave so we can't define the group apart from that case specific knowledge how can we be confident we could describe the group as not that it's ambiguity there can be ones that do run into the circularity problem so why why bite this off why you're there why not just to find a social group as women which he probably going to be found to be a distinct social group in the society who are then in particular societies subjected to certain types of person because they're women that men are and it's when you start narrowing it down you get into these think about it there is an apparatus to address domestic violence in the dominican republic that would seem to support the idea that it's thought of as a distinct or social group otherwise us surrounding this particular concern but how do i relate that to the problem we've been discussing which is that that group can be defined c a reason is that the milligan rather does that to care about when they think about setting up their head paratus they'd like to get everybody protected cooling the people who are unable to leave because they've been subject to persecution people benefited by developing in arguing for a social group like the one you're advocating as opposed to simply saying the social group is either women or women in domestic relationships and then moving jurors who for whatever reason have presented their claims of asylum claims like this one there or them women or women in domestic relations so insofar as we conclude that is the only route to go through all those asylum petitioners are out of iraq unless we have sound reasonable to say there's a reason to  point the board can consider social groups that are substantially similar to those cresent it it does have a precedent whereby it limits the ability of respondents to appear before the board in arguing in social groups but that yes when it you know a place to quote i'm christine agree on behalf of the united states attorney general allen i want to start by making two points and the first is that matter and i report has clearly stated that groups must be defined independently of the arm that was view the reason for the board having said that our position is that it would be because the term exclusively you are saying that it cannot be exclusively defined by the fact of persecution or exclusively defined be a reading that the what the board meant is that the group can't be defined exclusively by the harm so if it's a hybrid group where the harm is even a part of the group that still necessarily means that everyone in that group is these cases is the petitioners or the applicants are if you will i wasn't able to leave here because i was harmed i was unable to leave here because i was harmed but there are not here persecution reasons why a person would be on a bill to leave is not required if it means something other than the harm itself for example if there are certain groups within the society where marriages within those groups or relationships within those groups for whatever reason cannot be left that's a question of proof for that group it's not a term that needs to be in the group but then lends itself to arguing over whether the person was actually able to leave because for example in the ninth circuit case that we why the reason to run able to leave but then when you look at the actual facts of the kidneys even in this case petitioner never testified that the amount that there was a reason she couldn't leave other than his continued pursuit of her what do we court and it's out page five twenty two there in the court stated that council can always file a stop supplemental briefing after a new case comes out and because they didn't act case the argument had been wait and so multiple groups there's always been the ability to set forth i don't want to say as many groups as one wants but one can definitely support multiple groups how how is the government managed to  example the petitioner it simply said women in domestic relationship in the dominican republic i can't know what's wrong with that i can't simply i have when it comes to the evidence in the record well it would be sufficient for the who is and is not within the group and specifically by the terms as they're used in that society and the various social distinctions and whether they're seen as a group by that country doesn't the fact that there's all this apparatus to address domestic violence indicates that they are see logic of matter of a p s conclusion if i understood it you're saying i'm able to leave per se can never be part of the definition of a viable social group ye a categorical matter yes and what is the non arbitrary reason for so concluding given that it is self evident that there are some religious marriages in the dominican republic that's true why is it a reason to rule out the category of able to leave and that brings to the second point which is that because in most cases well to men which happens is the question becomes whether or not too and that would be a reason in those cases for the person to do so on circularity grounds yes what is the reason them for saying that you know all cases unable to leave can't count i haven't heard that explanation and since that would be because this out the category for social so particular social group is ambiguous and the statute does not defined and so the attorney general here really is relying on this idea that the group must be defined independently of the harm and for example in maneuvering our city and even in a matter of a b what was relied upon for inability to leave was the woman's was the harm so those cases roop and that and requiring that petitioners actually set forth to characteristics that unable to leave comes from it's a question of proof it's not a question of in the group and so it's reasonable to put  leave know they have a domestic violence after advice i assume that's not because of all women domestic they seem to think there's a particular problem of violence must manifest itself and i bet you look at the studies on why they have it is it because of the idea that it's a known thing that many women in domestic relationships are unable to leave and therefore are the particular risk of vio and so you're saying that there are women who are able to leave but those who aren't and that the government actually distinguishes between the two i assume that's right most to say to develop this whole apparatus to target domestic violence for particular protection that exact analysis i don't know that the government actually distinguishes between those who can and those who can't leave such that it covers going and who can leave but not women who can only the governments don't seem to distinguish along those  lines and so that also brings up which is a social distinction and particularly question whether the term unable to leave is actually find in those countries and again how it comes to argument that it's really cool that it's kind of the evidence to prove that the group is a mood  government was not unable or unwilling to protect i'm mistaken and in this case first the country conditions out didn't shows that there is an apparatus for dealing with domestic violence claims specifically  any harm occurred she states psychological harm and pressure on but she didn't explain the complaint says nothing about the extreme physical harm that she alleged in front of the immigration judge so this isn't a question of credibility she from credible sources not saying that the harm didn't happen but the evidence suggests that she may not have told the officers that she was actually harmed instead she said she was threatened so we don't know there's a gap in the confidence about whether there could threaten to kill yes so that's what she reported that's not investigated we actually don't know if it was investigated because she said she never followed up she says it wasn't investigated but there was an additional questioning about well did you go check did you ask anyone and when she did report him for not paying child support of the authorities might never arrested him so there is evidence at least that there is some sort of willingness on the part of the authorities to addres done afterwards that's what she stated were bugs that we don't have any facts in the record stating how she knows they did not investigate she just said i talked to them out on base said they would parently where he didn't talk to her at all and nothing happened so there is evidence that perhaps something could have happened but that isn't in the record and additionally i apologize there was another point that i was going to make but like i said you know when she did alan report him for not paying child support they didn't go to rest and so there is evidence like i said that the government is willing to take actions against him out for her benefit thank you thank you