withholding a removal on the part of protection can you speak up so we can hear you great thank you thank you the question today is whether substantial evidence supported the denial o was denied by the judge and the judge basically said that she did not a to kill a particular social group and the particular social group that she presented at the time was women in honduras who suffer domestic about you know gang violence although there were claims about gang violence because the perpetrator you don't mistake violence was also a gang member but that was not the main issue in that case although both of them are clear what is that what the strongest point in your favor what what is the main issue the main issue is that the petitioner was being prosecuted by the any claims yes yes you did or did you give both opening questions and rebuttal questions yesterday i haven't seen those in the record but i take your point and you have represented clients consolation but i'm sorry can i just say when she said it was whether a north carolina prayer for judgment continued which is not actually a conviction whether that can be a conviction for the purposes of denying do you ever file reply briefs in your cases no i have never find the right have you ever why didn't you file the opening brief on time in this case whether my client was a member of that particular social group or not and i was thinking that just that that statement that my client the familial relationship between my client i think the reason that we're asking these questions is that this doesn't seem to be a very full representation for your client in this case and i think you hold yourself your legal business that way i only say that i specialize in all i don't i don't think i call myself but you specialize in immigration law you said you'd never repeat father reply brief in one of these cases i have never filed a claim so you've always been i guess later decision that your opening brief was enough to win the case for your that if my my arguments in my my my opening brief and on the record believe that it will suffer if you do ok you can that the lines of i don't stand a just three quarters a page because there's a lot of space in here the lines of argument in your opening brief there are seventeen lines of argument that it the there was a come there was see that complete lack of reasoning below your right in terms of that may have been ignored about the domestic violence that the police you know duras are always she she testified and the country conditions report shows that the police are always walking with a gang stance that is why she would not be able to she could not  report this and she could not have any input into government to do anything she tried to report she went to a judge she went to the police and she was told that at the mystic issue that they were not getting involved in so that i believe would also  good morning your honour's may please the court my name is julia taylor and i represent to respond in this case general bar your honour's petitioners counsel is correct that substantial evidence is the standard in this case and that is exceedingly narrow standard but our position is that this case primarily implicates as i think that you indicated are the issues of waiver and exhaustion as is fully addressed and respondents in brief in her counsel has either waived or failed to exhaust each and every particular social group that she articulated at any point during this litigation  my colleague mentioned her st particular social group which was articulated before the immigration judge as was her burden to articulate it before the immigration judge which was women in honduras who suffer from domestic violence and are unable to leave their relationship and unfortunately while the immigration judge found that she had not and i'm sorry too but what about the fact that the image it immigration judge in the a both just didn't acknowledge or discuss the fact that she had gone to the police and they said well nothing and we can do for you because it's a domestic situation ok so we're going to backs and that's an issue of her responsibility and her burden to establish doesn't have to show a particular social group that is absolutely correct or she wouldn't it would be an issue literally acquiescence as opposed to one i'm just trying to make sure i understand what standard we're dealing with and what claim that i would say that by not arguing the convention of torture up to the board of immigration appeals and not addressing it at all in her in her brief to this court that she she she failed to exhaust from your claim by failing to raise it to the board in any manner or form of any kind but i'm happy to i'm happy to address your questions chargeback or there was evidence she said that she had i believe she said she called once and it's well discussed so i think the immigration judge was was persuaded by her negatively by her testimony that she didn't take any sort of what her testimony was quite vague by the way but i so is the hate so you were about to say what you think emerged great and judge was persuaded by but we don't know what the immigration judge thought about that particular issue because it's not mentioned it isn't mentioned but what the immigration judge does seem to focus on is what he calls the more formative overtures to get help and i think believe that's taken from her testimony that she did go to court one day i believe that my colleague mentioned that she went before a judge that does not in the record but she apparently if you look at her testimony she says as soon as i went inside the door i turned around because an attorney that she spoke to in the building told her it was a long process where you present when the immigration judge with their hearing before the immigration oh no no no no ok so that you're in the same position where your were looking yes the immigration judges opinion and the thing that i was struck by was that the immigration judge found her not credible as he found her not credible on the basis of this confusion between the th street gang and the zetas and in fact when you read her testimony difference if you want to i did not read the record regarding her testimony of whether or not her husband was affiliated with the eight hundred and thirteen straight m s th street gang or is they just to be consistent and i didn't think that she exceeded lane inc that was the basis for finding her not credible oh it was the basis for finding her now i know it was the basis that he found her non radical i'm asking you if this record fairly read provides a basis for finding her not credible the record is a big mess right we would agree with that there were probably looks like there are translation problems we have a pretty hysterical claimant at least that's the way it reads you know we're all in the same spot so if you weren't there we weren't there but your honor i would say that the reason we shouldn't be in this spot and again i think this is something the three of you have focused on is that this matter should have been raised to the board if the adverse credibility determination which does exist in the record and the immigration found her only credible with respect to the issues that she corroborated then it was it was counsel's responsibility to raise that issue ok or not and that's an argument not in the position that legally we should be in because that issue was not raised to the board and the board did not have an opportunity to address the immigration judges finding on an adverse credibility and really look at the record and potentially the case to the immigration judge for a different better more fulsome address credibility determination or a credibility determination maybe not even hint which way we're going to well  you know i did hear my count colleagues say that it was a credibility determination and not a credibility terminations i think the immigration judge and again there are difficulties and giving these oral decisions they're speaking from the bench they're not written decisions so but i think it's fairly clear that the immigration judge was finding her not credible he says i will only find her credible as to the issues that she actually corroborated and that would basically be an adverse effect on the particular social group actually my count my colleague mention too but women in one hundred or a sue suffer from domestic violence and are able to leave their relationship is the particular social group that she articulated before the immigration judge  that she had not established a nexus to any group of which she was a member that was cognizable and that if she was again abandoned before the before of immigration appeals she did not raise that in her break then in her brief to the board she raised an issue she raised the were a new particular social group which is inappropriate under board president working class women of honduras targeted for gang activity she only raised that particular social group to the board the board addressed it and said and said you didn't vote basically said that's there's no nexus to that that's not a cognizable social group and then we have on appeal to this court for the st time we have an articulation and my colleague mention it again that she was persecuted on account of her membership in a family now she articulated it in the in the appeal brief as the nuclear family she also articulated as a persecuted nuclear family which of course under were precedent is a circular just circular is finding in her opening brief to the court and even in fact she does not even address these forms of protection or removal by as she sets forth controlling law and how this case would rule she discusses the burden associated with asylum she referred a repeated they refers to a well founded fear and not a clear probability standard of fear that our possibility of future persecution that is associated with the claims of withholding of our mobile and the convention against torture some accordingly those issues are also waived if your honour's have no further questions for me i will i don't think we do thank you very much wouldn't go anywhere but about changing the social group that she was a member of did you intentionally do that my idea was this that whatever i call the group the group whatever i call a group is defined by the same elements well why not call it the same thing so you don't leave yourself open to the fact that you're changing social groups it's not is in hindsight but it's something i should have done but all i was trying to do is to try and because the same elements exist in every way that i have defined it is the same and it is a familial relationship  the whatever you call it it has these elements and then stablish in what record evidence supports those elements and so what you're what your client testified to that would support those elements than once yes i think the record says that yes the record she says she says they don't say if you break right now what about the never mind found i do have one final question and it seemed to me that there was a credibility determination it was based on this business about the various gangs did you appeal that saying it wasn't a basis for inside the but didn't think it was worth it just because that is the basis for the i j a its credibility to sherman ation right so to show that that was wrong when you be worthwhile but you made a decision not to point out why it was wrong