for of for petitioners this is an appeal of two asylum claims one by a mother and one by her daughter but sort of difficult to address at all because there are different claims i'll start with the daughter's claims andrea winces came to united states presented herself and asked for asylum because of abuse she had suffered at the hands of a of a former two former partners at the time there was a precedent decision called matter of a r c g they talked about how victims of domestic violence can get asylum in the united states and i thought that maybe the twenty eight jail letter i filed this morning this law is evolving as we speak after a briefing in this case was completed the attorney general issued a decision called matter maybe that purported to change the sat silent law but then the decision that came out that i just became aware of in this race case basically says the attorney general has now conceded that most of matter of a b is dicta and that it didn't change the law what we're left with i think is a matter of a r c g is no longer the law and the main criticism of it was that it relied on a stipulation but beyond that that criticism the teeth of matter of a r c d are still there we still use the same tools to determine what is a particular social there are problems with the way that andrea's asylum claim was was determined by the immigration judge first the agency agreed that her first partner had persecuted her the things he had done to her was persecution but the agency never applied the regulatory presumption that supposed to arise when you've been persecuted in the past that is presumed to be persecuted in the future that never occurs here primarily the board in the immigration judge addressed this question about was she able to leave because the group in manner of our air c g had been defined as married women in the south or who were unable to leave the focus was on an inability to leave our main complaint is its inability to leave taken to its most literal form would never apply to anyone because the fact we're here means you left and as we read the board's decision that seems to be what they're saying well you were able to get away so it's not that you were able to leave  the concern is she was unable to was able to get away at considerable risk and it wasn't with his agreement it was it brought it under her house and threatened killer and then had continued to harass or threaten her family member since she left  none of the got of the board decision though as not i understand your argument and the language in the decision is imo arguably kind of loose so that you could you could read it to say anybody laughed obviously isn't somebody who can't leave but i think what they're really were saying it wasn't that hard for her to leave therefore she didn't fall into the group of domestic partners who can't leave their abusive spouse i think that's i think you're right i think that's what they were getting at think they'd have a paragraph from relocation for example they do and we get i'd like to talk about that as a separate issue but on the ability to leave i do think the facts your point because she was found to be credible the gentleman came to our house with a gun and rehabilitation i do think the the agency's findings are complete because there are things we know in this record that aren't addressed one of them is jose the abuser is a well known narco traffickers and part of a cartel the idea that she could leave and i guess relocated to another part of mexico i think would require a finding that jose can't find her there but the agency doesn't make that finding well there's a relocation and they get back together on a leaving right with jose m three for the first abuser she re because she had run into you want to she went back home to her mother i agree that for the first abuser she was able to relocate in that instance our concern is with the regulatory presumption that she might not necessarily need to prove she's likely be persecuted in the future for the second abuser she didn't relocate and he's the one that was alleged to have been employed by the cartel and said i can have my cartel find you favor if you leave the relocation analysis by the board is a single sentence could find her i want to use the rest of my time if i can on that during a sound plan because it's a little bit different she's afraid of the same man but the reasoning is different she is not a victim of domestic violence you can't leave the relationship her group the particular social group was the family of andrea the nuclear family which this court and the board have addressed as being a particular social group the board addressed this by saying we don't think the family your family relationship was the reason  that he went after you that's at page five of the record but the board doesn't exactly say why the board says they think he targeted victory not because she just happened to be in the house but that's not a fact finding that the judge made and there's no evidence that i know of but i would note that in closing the trial attorney agreed that jose was going to continue to come after victory now if she got orders that's it page one ninety five and one ninety six of the record that's a confession by the prosecutor that they're to read i was being targeted for a reason other than you just happened to be in a house on a particular day and missing from the board's decision is any reference to that concession we did brief it at the board and again that's in the trial transcript of the record at page one ninety five and one ninety six  and then finally on the issue of future persecution for victory not the board of greed and its decision that there was limited evidence she would be persecuted that's page five it might be that the board was referring to that concession that's the limited evidence they were talking about but it's not clear to me why that doesn't meet her burden of proof she doesn't need to show clear and convincing evidence limiting evidence might be enough to show she's likely to be persecuted so for these reasons we think the court should reverse and remand to the board i have a question about th persecutors because andrea has there's two and you called them one and two and i was using their first name so i have a little trouble following which one was which it seemed to me that it was and i know this is your one or two but it was diego that but not i mean she she left with no never documents that seemed a little dicier then the jose leaving right so she had to get police i think to take the two of us stationed they didn't do anything about the fact that she had been brutalized but they took her to a bus station and then yes she was able to get away but at significant risk so and maybe there's no real good answer this but how do you how do we look at both of these relationships and in the context of her claim this seems to me to be differently because there are two people who have said that the board has or that i just found to be different categories of players here i think there are two ways it affects it one of them the immigration judge saw the fact that she had gotten away from the she moved to do you want to be for this guy diego brutalized her and it's still there and so i think the fact i think it adds to the the argument that she can't relocate because she can't move to want to but argument is if you make a finding about persecution if there has been has persecution and the regulations require additional there's a presumption of future persecution you need to talk about why why are you persecuted it was because you were a member of a particular social group we think it's the same social group that was identified in good morning ma'am please the court i'm christina greer on behalf of the attorney general your honour's the record in this case does not compel the conclusion that petitioners qualify for asylum asylum is not available to cure all ills or provide relie all who experience harm it's a limited form of relief available only to those who establish that they're refugees and to be a refugee is a very narrow category it's someone who has been or will be subjected to harm rising to the level of persecution but that harm must be on account of one of the five protected grounds of race religion nationality political opinion or membership in a particular social groups both and miss our call and have experienced serious harm but the record does not compel that the can the conclusion is that harm was on account of the protected ground specifically the record does not compel the conclusion that mis member of her asserted particular social group of women in abusive relationships they can't leave or that jose's reason for targeting missile or cone is her membership in a group of misquoting of his family members those are conclusions that are abusive relationship be considered a member to grow social group taking taking the inability to leave it's your you're just in a very bad abusive relationship can that can that constitute a particular social group prior to a b well the question with on able to leave in matter there c g the board addressed the the board stated that the inability to leave the relationship is what leave but perhaps in some societies it is something that immutable and can't be changed because society and cultural norms prevent someone from leaving and make that relationship a and so that's where the inability to leave language came from this idea of immutability that one can't change the fact that they're in a relationship because of societal context th does not allow them to leave that relationship so here miss godinez was able to leave but also as the board noted she did not establish that there were those requirements  societal norms that prevented her from changing her relationship status with either diego or jose well what is the attorney general sessions purported to do when  board you have to show your work you have to go through each of these requirements in each case and show that they are established and as i was one of the councils on your i am one of councils on grey's and one of the arguments that treated as if it were a group as a matter of law when it's actually a factual question that must be determined in each individual case and so that's what the attorney general said in a b is that the board and the immigration judge have to do their work they have to show they have to actually analyze whether this is a group within the societal context so it is the department's position that it does not change the law it was only a procedural ruling yes it did not change the law it just said orde you have to do your work you can't make legal determination that then especially in a precedent decision based on the concessions of parties the board must actually do the work and that doesn't affect this case neither a b or grace does because miss godinez did not establish or the record doesn't compel the conclusion that she's a member of her group and so it's a different question than cognize ability and we're not arguing that a b applies here or anything of that nature just the misquoting as did not a stablish that she's a member of her group because she was able to first leave jose in two thousand and eleven without issue in fact they had no further contact and he even refused to take her phone calls then when she left and b came into a relationship diego she was able to leave that relationship and twenty thirteen and according to opposing counsel with the assistance of the police to at least leave now again you know she got into another relationship with jose in twenty fifteen or and i believe twenty fifteen yes was when they moved back in together and then in november twenty fifth scene she told him to leave there was the terrible event with him coming back with the gun but then he did leave and for the next few weeks that she remained in mexico they had no further contact and indeed have only had one phone  friend requests sent and that coupled with the fact that there's no evidence of a societal of societal or social norms that have kept her in either of those relationships when she didn't establish that she was unable to leave those relationships and second the record supports the conclusion that the harm that ms seiler conus experienced and fears was not on account of her familial relationship with mr deane as or at least the record doesn't compel that conclusion records show that he came into the family home and was basically threatening folks in andrea's family saying i'm going to do harm to the children all but all but the one who is mine it seems to me that there was some indication that he was targeting andrea's family in that incident and well as to responses to that the first that there's no not necessarily that he was targeting her family because they are family vs because they were there if there had been a friend at the house he would have theirs record doesn't compel the conclusion that he would not have targeted the friend as well it was the people that were in the house and that was the factual finding made by the immigration judge and so that doesn't necessarily mean that he was threatening miss eleanor cohn because she is misquoting as is mother so there's a difference between being put in the place where one is being threatened because of the familial relationship versus the persecutor targeting and having a motive a persecutory motive to target that person because of that familial relationship and the evidence doesn't demonstrate that he support the fact the idea that he has a persecutory motive against the family as he says as the testimony stated that he threatened him for file for trying to obtain a copy of the police report and for quote interfering and so also ultimately if even if to conclusions can be drawn based on the evidence in the record the evidence must compel the facts or compel doubt the facts are how the petitioners want them to be seen and hear the facts or the evidence of record does not compel the conclusion that misquoting as was unable to leave her relationship and also does not compel the conclusion that are any additional questions i will briefly conclude thank you for your argument things to respond to judge miller's question about could you just be an abused person and this is the inability to leave nasa a necessary condition it's never been explained why that's a necessary condition and and there's one good example in this court this court made a decision in the case of the gangway and g e and it's not my brief versus holder that talks about camera and widows being abused by their family members were a particular social group that was the court holding the court didn't require them to show they couldn't leave the family or that they had some sort of necessary ties so that's i think a good reason a good case in this circuit where bin ability to leave is not necessarily require the last what i want to make is about the future if it  only targeted because she was in the house why did the government agree that when she gets deported she was likely going to be targeted against jose that's at page one ninety five of the record the agency has never quite explain why they conceded that and i think it goes a large a long way to refute the argument by the immigration judge in the board that she was only targeted because she does happen to be in the house thank you thank you both for your argument case number eighteen dash ten sixty is submitted