the well the reason that he didn't qualify for asylum unfortunately he was brought here to the united states when he was only three years old unfortunately for this person his parents meaning his mother and his his sister were not in that application and it's very shameful and it upset me a lot and the reason that i took this case pro bono on from my heart and have kept on y has done the right thing at the right moment it took a long time for me to be able to obtain a copy of the record for the father i was never able to obtain the records of the mother or the complete record whatsoever you appreciated that problem with his timeliness so that what you were appealing really related to his withholding of removal is that right that's correct so asylum isn't at least it wasn't in your brief because you  really looking at withholding of removal of course the ok i want you i was approaching the timeliness because we argue that on the judge but unfortunately because there was no certainty and the judge in his position actually mention it unfortunate because the stepfather got asylum correct also barassi them believe that the stepfather is a us citizen now which is very unfortunate because they abandoned not only mr rodriguez but he sister to she's being here on document that has zero possibilities of many all their options that he will have whether if his parents have acted properly he didn't ask to come here he was just three years old when he came to the united states and year after year they did his paperwork they proceed to have a green card they proceed to apply for citizenship but they never applied i believe that in two thousand and three there was some time of documents that this bit father tr to make an attempt to file some sort of application for asylum lately for him but never was a follow up or you had mentioned earlier good this you know the difficulty which i think we face and you also have to overcome are these cases we have for example on tattoos not being a legitimate basis or how how would you propose that the court would get around that fairly straightforward ruling that that can't be the basis for a social group or for grant there is there is  understood that a former gang member come be persecuted a person that is going to be perceived as a possible gang member and is going to have an impure a gang membership hands all over his body so it's not a possibility to say oh he's going to be doing later or he's going to covered them with clothes because it's not a possibility given the factors that when a person goes to the consulate to ask for a visa the government of the united state can deny that person based on the reason to believe that the person is a gang member even if there have never been in rather it's it's a sub this person has it up to so obviously has to be a gang member or was a gang member this person is twenty seven years old so not only has to tos he's on the target the please the court james fairly for the attorney general this case should be denied in part and dismissed in part it should be denied because substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal because petitioner c of the guatemalan government and i'd also like to mention that it should be dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that he wasn't entitled to a voluntary departure departure but it seems like she's waive that argument so we're past that so with respect to the knowledge withholding petitioners propose social group of guatemalans to tattoo that all down if i am as having a gang exactly the record contains information about it a cousin of his being killed recently and then he talked about he spoke with people who knew his cousin so i think he might have some relatives down there but i'm not sure i think it's his mom and his stepfather so he was lawfully admitted he came here on it on a visa but he overstayed and that's the removal of the charge and i don't know why his mother got status through his death father but he didn't they didn't apply for him for some reason but they did later and it was denied because it was untimely there was a joining following to join a provision that i guess a step father or mother could have applied for status for him but they didn't do it within the deadline and that was in two thousand three so that's the extent of what i know and then moving on from the withholding part substantial evidence also supports the  cat because he hasn't shown that it was more likely than not that we would be tortured should he return to guatemala again the immigration judge and the board review the facts and they found that there was no past torture i think his base is understand that the basis of making the claim is he knows what happens to people who have the same problems that lead years they were but he's got a percentage of his body tattooed and he thinks that will expose him to them which is that in the thing we should consider well that's his claim but this court has many cases like this before  social group based on these tattoos because there was no it's got to be particular and meaning that it can't be amorphous or to fuse or subjective and it's got to be socially distinct joining that quote amounts of society use people with your cloying different from those that the priority decisions of this court considering tattoos have for cloves that's a problem or because  very well known that the government in guatemala has being one able and willing to attack that the problems that they have with the gas i do is that in a country report and when i was in front of the immigration judge that support how their people with the tools and i just mentioned one in particular that even people that just trouble from the united states are advice to court their tools if they're going to be going to certain because we talk about the criminal activity that he does he try to survive without having a work permit that we have been having the support of the parents that they didn't do what they were supposed to do when they bring him here as a child thank you i think we have your argument in everyone thank you our next case for argument is united states versus jackson