escape persecution he suffered from his father animals a decision from the board of immigration appeals in which the board failed to properly analyze several issues in regards to the petitioners withholding of removal and kat claim however because of our limited time we would like an able to leave this group was formulated along the lines of man its definition doesn't have in it the persecution by the father no your honor that is our position and our position is that in a matter of a b which as the g their focus was that it was a circular definition because the persecution was defined within the social group however our position is one that is not the case in all social groups involving domestic violence while there's a spousal relationship or a child parent relationship because an individual's inability to leaders in the reef it's not is not contending that a b is a categorically rule i'm sorry i don't think it's a point of dispute there is no blanket rule that a specific group as or is not cannot as well in all cases as long as the factual scenario has not been previously rejected by the board which is our case because factual scenario has not been previously rejected by the board and as long as the group is not circular a were in agreement that whether you go through the m e v g route or the i j a essentially you've got a social group here that would apply to all honduran sons and that's to overbroad it's not particular enough and your honor from me take a step agreed to a membership approaching a social group and basically just rubber stamp it our position is that that was not the case if the court carefully analyzes the decision of a r c g the board in fact goes through the m e requirements and decides that unable to leave a relationship in that case it was a watermelon married woman that that in fact it is an immutable characteristic that it is particularly and that it is socially distinct and the interesting case and the interesting thing about this is that m e g case is that any v g actually comes from a similar chevron issue i'm just not seeing why the chevron deference to a b is even implicated in this case because if the issue is all children are dependent on their parents financially or whatever it's hard to leave your parents why are we just affirming on that group because it's everyone plus it's overbroad because it's every right and so the socially distinct argument if you would go back again to a r c t which is what this case was based on and what the argument was made at the immigration judge level then has set up several organizations to help women of domestic violence in other words guatemala has found that there is a group in need of protection in this country and many children have been maltreated and harmed by child abuse and there's a group called landsat which is on twenty one for page two hundred and fourteen of the record your honor one of the country  a which i think everyone is lisa's precedent for finding social group in that case the procedural history of that case is that it actually went up to the rd circuit for determining whether social visibility which at that time was the test  was a proper test under president law and the rd circuit in that case found that it was not that under chevron it did not muster deference and to send it back down to the b i and then the b i came out with the opinion that we now know as  and but i would like to point the four to the position or the standard used in that case because i believe it's important for the case at hand in oreana a court found th found that the social visibility toss is not a radical departure from prior interpretation but rather it was a subtle shift that evolved out of the ideas participations in this case at hand what they're turning general has done with a matter of a b is not a subtle shift matter of a b is a radical departure from previous b i precedent that has stated and found that domestic violence or to be specific to it is a sweeping sweeping violation of the fundamental principle that there are narrow exceptions to agencies such as the board of immigration appeals and there or the  attorney general ability to do legislate within the government separation of powers framework the other issues that i think are important here when we look at matter of a b is that it's not just an issue in regards to domestic violence it also heightens the standard persecutor and yet here in matter of a b now we must show that the government condone the private actions or at least demonstrated a complete helplessness which is a much higher standard than what was set prior to matter of a v but the b i didn't even of ab is proper and that it does muster deference under chevron then we would ask the court to look at the specific facts of this case in which we have a child that his inability to leave has nothing to do with the persecution which is what the b a seem to think in their opinion that because of the risk of persecution because it was defined by persecution that's not the case here we have a child whose inability to leave was based on the fact that he is dependent on his father that he has adult supervision that he depends on food and shelter from his parents  also the society norms and society that determine that children should be home with their parents so this is a kid who began abuse began being abused at four years of age and departed fled at fourteen or fifteen years of age  least ten years of his life being abused by his father and i won't go into the details but your honour's can look at the record to look at the type of abuse that was committed but the issue here is that this is very different from your typical domestic father and spousal domestic partner relationship this is a child who had no ability to leave the relationship and that definition had nothing to do with the persecution in and of itself he was persecuted because of that but his inability to leave had nothing to do with the fact that he was being persecuted it had to do with the fact that he was a child that he was four thousand five hundred and sixty seven years of age and was unable to leave that relationship but is in this court just to look at what the b social group and because of the risk of persecution that's defined in this social group that's what they allege we're going to hear by deny and say that there was no cognize will social group they don't look at any other issues except the voluntary departure issue  this is overbroad it's not particular that i just found it based on the social distinction are they not not the particularity of the social distinction i think was the issue at the i j a level in regards to that social group but if i could the  distinct and it had innate characteristics defined within it and so now here comes the attorney general and says wait no that's not what i want we're going to switch this around and puts us in a predicament where we have the i e precedent that has been analyzed based on  g finding that this is proper and now we have matter of a view saying it's not me simply for me why isn't the common theme throughout is it overbroad and you haven't convinced me why all children being wards of their parents isn't  overbroad group and that that that remains good law the i j a applied at the v o a applied its there was undisturbed by a b what's the answer the answer is that the the standard is not overbroad it's particularly which says that it are our social group is not children with children that live in households in which they are persecuted that's not the social of the social group as a hunder in science in a domestic from ill relationship that they are unable to leave there are several particular elements of male children in honduras would that description captured on line where the senate is run a bit under and sons in a domestic familial relationship who are unable to leave honest i have no sense of ho broad that group again our position is that it's not broad because each of the elements within that social group are particularly defined which is what and e g sta just interpret in a number of aspects of particular social group persecution government involvement all of those those elements of a silent and withholding claims your honour's there was even did over rule a matter of a r c g gave very good reasons for doing that met matter of a c a r c g rested on the concessions it purported to apply m e v g but without going undergoing the rigorous analysis the need to do that instead it relied on party concessions that all those points in it really it really drilled independent of persecution doesn't really implicate circularity since they didn't build into their description the father's persecution so so that part of a b that to me is more innovative and perhaps entitle a deference just and it may be an issue for another day this one this issue wouldn't really fit into that correction but disagree i think this is just straight and evy g a b reiterating the law opinions you have a situation where you are breaking in the persecution in some sense because in certainly in a great many of these cases the reason people are unable to believe to leave is the harm feared that's why we need to be really really careful in delineating in precisely defining these syrup social groups so that we can make sure your honor that they have the particularities so that they have the social distinction so i do think there is the circularity prom i do think the b i a was reasonable and correct in recognizing that and in rejecting this claim as a matter of law i think as we said in our brief if you get to issues or particularly in social distinction there are also the decision is is is is well supported in light of those principles as well up there it's well supported in light of the principles but did the b i's decision itself articulated enough by citing a b that we have the authority to firm on that ground determination and what we have here is this circularly defined social group and i think that's what the court should he would too and if we disagree with that do you still with i think it  the the board does go on to say you know what that in later in the paragraph look moreover the attorney general held that social groups defined by private private criminality likely lacked the particularity and i think the court can understand that there were there was some support for  that's the best the best thing cleanest and i think correct way to to deny the petition your honor up just briefly i know you're not i mean i think matter of the a p does does this this well but i think the rules laid down finally your honor i don't think my friend got to get to it but on the other she claims it is i won't expand much in our briefing but when you get to those i just want to be clear your position is that a b doesn't create a categorical denial of asylum claims involving there's no blanket rule that a specific group is carved out unless we have you know a factual scenario that the board of his has previously rejected the same factual scenario or the group is circularly defined and is just as here kind of  at the outset i think what the attorney general is recognizing your honor was that look when you get to some of these personal violence claims private violence claims government not directly involved claims it's just in practice it's really hard to satisfy the requirements for persecution government involvement those kinds of things it's i think what this court in the supreme court does quite often where in addition to laying out the legal requirements the court has recognized look this is how this is going to look in practice this is just a nice pla language clean way of explaining how the principles are going to likely shake out never the application but but the attorney general did emphasize your honor look we analyze these by by their facts i want immigration judges in the board to carefully go through the with that with that qualification that we mentioned thirty two qualifications page thirty two of her brief for her group definition turns on the department of state's finding of child abuse as sort of particularly acute and creating a social group in your response to that implied that that citation of hers related in digitas people a member that portion of your brief to write your own i think that a correct citation of yours my apologies on run i think i think we might have had a confusion between the our way sites in the administrative record and our sites is that it's a teeny little point but i'm sort of particular no pun intended if you knew that coming in you do want to just send us a note saying i hundred cases there are prison sentences for up to three years for child abuse going to get some other things i don't think it gets to that there really rigorous thing you need to should do to show a particular socially distinct group though so thank you for