merits panel has to decide whether to maintain your brief has a very brief discussion of this issue and let me tell you what my worries are the first issues that the board of immigration appeals  opinion in this case uses your clients for name sounds like the cat is out of the bag so why should we be anonymous when the full name is already in the public record you might want to address that yes honor admittedly the board does use my client's full name however those opinions are not often published as as this opinion maybe and this court as long recognized in other cases  cross are g w ga there when there is a threat to the litigants life or safety that that proceeding under pseudonyms can be appropriate and further well that's that's actually my second question the the theme of your client's claim is that her ex partner knows exactly who she is and where her family lives in mexico so what is anonymity adding with respect to the potential threat the anonymity seems to affect the general public but not the potential threat or no you are i think the anonymity would affect his ability to find her in this country in which case the threat of course if she loses in this appeal then she won't be in this country right so your your concern if she wins in the appeal and her former partner comes looking for other boss and by hundreds of pages of documentary evidence that show the prevalence of the cartel in mexico as well as what a cartel member looks like in determining whether she was e g was a was a member i think it's fair to conclude of the cartel during the during the relevant period in mexico to write yesterday but the threat the threats never never you know turned into any kind of action manifested themselves any beyond the drive by going to greg you know steaming we're going to grab the kids from school one way or another at a time that he was a member of the cartel then too right that's correct your honor and that actually raises a good point that the unfulfilled threats they were in fact unfulfilled and that's something that the border and the immigration judge highlight when doing the past persecution argument but then when they they do well founded fear of future persecution analysis they don't highlight that at all and that kind of selective highlighting the court has recognized in iowa is a hallmark of a non reasoned analysis that when the agency uses a piece of evidence bet that means the the analysis is not reason and the court must remain but you you see if i read your brief right you seem to place on a lot of weight on his his membership in the cartel in the event that you know she would be returned to mexico right and that there is it's not as simple as threats in the past it's the threats in the past combined with the fact that he's a member of this cartel right that's what you want us to really put a lot of weight on but the cartel status didn't didn't convert the threats and anything beyond what we just observed while she was in mexico yes your honor it didn't during the during that period but the court has recognized why would his cartel status why why would it why would it turn this into a persecution situation if she returned as opposed to know some some type of horribly unfortunate instance of like family revenge or something you know because she took the kids to indianapolis yes your honor and so the cartel status goes to his ability to fulfill those threats and i understand your question that you know he hasn't fulfilled them yet why do we think it's going to happen when she gets back but that question assumes simply that because he hasn't revealed them that he never will and the the court has been fulfilling why as a member of the cartel he is still a member of the carter right grants the point that you want so the before and after is no different he's a member of the cartel before today and resume we will remain but when he had an opportunity to act on the threat he did not not to the at least according to the board not to the level that rose to the persecution right your honor and  as i was saying that i think the question assumes that because he hasn't he never will and the court has recognized that the the fact that you escape persecution by chance or by fighting is not enough to sustain a reasoned analysis and i think that's what we have here she is a scape based on chance and by fleeing i must show you no choice i don't understand why thread from a domestic worker is persecution  persecution unlike in chicago because the chicago police will respond to your claims of domestic violence in this case and i c c went to the police not only did they say they were on able to do anything about it unwilling to do anything they said that if she was being stalked by e g she must have done something wrong and they didn't even allow her to file a report so that's what takes this from being a situation of domestic violence in chicago to being a situation of being menaced by a cartel with the acquiescence of the but i still don't see why this persecution statute talks about persecution on the basis of politics or religion it isn't  it's it is a risk certainly but on the basis of a domestic relationship or a former domestic relationship or presence of a trial which is not a statutory criteria careful to say it doesn't include anybody who has it down to five just five or two of the threat i mean that's that's what's going on here she's not threatened person and sesay holds that that does children which would have a threat from the cartel of the father as well as rival cartels which would be different you know that that's exactly what i'm saying about such a it says people who are threatened people who are down to find by virtue of being threatened are not a social group that's not how you would you can reject our own bank holdings but it won't make them go away your honor their having a child is not the same as having direct and either way the board didn't reach this question and so this court can affirm on those grounds under s cartel status three sentences across two decisions taking her credible testimony and then saying that the clear conclusion of that testimony was merely speculative however it didn't identify any of the facts in her testimony it didn't identify any of the facts and her mother's testimony or bosses testimony or her child sustenance it didn't look at any of the evidence in any of the documents that showed the prevalence of the cartel in mexico or that the type of behaviors that e g was characterizing driving brand new cars multiple brand spanish right she doesn't expect her a place in the country she couldn't do you i'm sorry could you repeat your anyplace in the country she could not relocate to your honor it would be unsafe and unreasonable for her to relocate anywhere in the country and the agency's analysis of reasonability was clearly on reason because again it relied only on a citation to one case that determine what was unreasonable and what isn't reasonable does not logically follow as what is reasonable it on your arm there is afoot merely an alien talked about it for less than a page on the very last page of our grief i dropped a footnote saying i don't want to take a position if you know what forty fourth does want to take a position that's sealed record from the agency agency decision has been out there for both the ideas decision and the board's assume about there for years so you know what how easy is it to access the board of immigration that you know others have not heard of it i mean isolation backwards as you noted former i suspect your former domestic partner does not have an account with the office of immigration judges no you are but i mean he knows who she is and you know at this point he knows the names of of his child he signed a mercenary so to say that they must be but from knowing free they must he must be not knowing it but i mean us i think cut off his well she could as you are said relocate in a reasonably so because i was her home country it was unreasonable to ask her to relocate only to united states but not within her own country where she actually knows the culture and  being a waitress she has a very easy way to find a job there is i mean can i can i ask you to act or react to a point that mr glenn makes that i think is pretty well stated and that is what in the world is the immigrant here to do to show that her former domestic partners a member of a cartel beyond what she did or you mean the facts are the facts so what are the facts well she could only show speculation she could show that she supposedly comes from an area where she knows cartel members because they're everywhere but show yet she meets and falls in love with this guy i mean she doesn't know there's no correlation but i mean she didn't she swear under oath and didn't her mother and others come forward with information that said this follows a member of a car i just i don't i bury that we that there's some sort of burden out there that just has a complete a find that he was a cartel member which is the opposite of what the agency found now the agency looked at and said well ok so what is the basis for her claim he's a cartel doesn't have to do indicative tattoos he doesn't wear the clothes i mean there's no membership roster no it's not that you're on but you could show that he told her he was a cartel which never happened that somebody else told her he was in a carto which never happened or that she actually saw him committing criminal acts which again never seems unlikely that you'd see but but i mean if you brought the loot home then at that point she could have seen that you know while or maybe he was an accessory or something to his cousins that i mean most your honor if even he's not in it but his relatives are so at this point your honor you know what to say that there's cost persecution well all we have here is that he made a single threat and i was to take his to that on because they claim that right i stand rat is increase the pound i asked mr glenn about that you heard what he had to say and so i would say no it's not because you know even though he was a member supposedly of a cartel he never hurt her never hurt anyone never hurt the children she never saw him being violent in fact when they broke up he said oh that's fine no and then there was a one year separation where they did well almost a year without even see each other i mean if this guy's such a hard core  she is defining the pun his ability for that group by the very fact of the persecution so we still don't show the shin every argument it's been made do you think the board relationship holds no water because she didn't leave the relationship she wanted for years and yet somehow she they claim that she is unable to leave that relationship she was able to move our own get her job back have no contact with him for a year so we would say that she's not part of the p s u number two mothers of a mexican cartel members children you know again this is where your honor we get into whether or not he was a cartel member you know so you know to shit to say that she was a cartel member and not just associate with her toes a different story the fact that he was paying out his cousins which he said are family members he told her they're my family  members the fact that he's hanging out with them does not make him a cartel member what's the government's position on lou versus holder so correctly decided the second circuit decision on a familiar  if you give me the holding are why i think i think that it goes to this point about the about the current and that is if there if the alien needs to make a showing on a particular point here current cartel status you know there needs to be  you know some articulation of what what is expected you know of the individual to make that showing to corroborate you know the contention that the c g is a member of the of a cartel cia what troubles me about this is you just say you know she hasn't proved it she hasn't proved it and i think what in the world is she supposed to do think about think about who she is think about the means that she has well you're i mean i just don't know why you're fighting the cartel point that much or i really don't well i just i am telling you what the evidence shows now as a legal what he's supposed to do that's the question i have as a legal point you know counsel says well you know you have any photographs deep are there any other affidavits from non family members that you can come forward with that speak to his associations and i don't know whether it's reasonable or not but it's not an all or nothing proposition but here direct significant evidence to show which he says claims happened and then whether or not that evidence actually meets the standard well here the agency said ok you've come forward all the evidence that you say you can possibly produce you have it doesn't meet the standard at the time of the hearing they have had no contact for years so her say i can't look at somewhere based on the fact that he's located somewhere well she doesn't know where he is and he's not come forward and contact her mother for years now his mother's come a few times to say hey can i see my grandchild and her mother said no now they haven't so it shows that there is some one of his cousins daughters may be coming there a asking we don't know on whose behalf whether or not that there's a phone number he could have to reach her in the united states again do not so you know as a father without a child obviously he's been prevented by her wrong even seeing or pocket there's also evidence that she has an imprint mel which is mentioned the mother's affidavit that she could prove to all these things show i mean the fact that she moved the united states to temporarily with her the government spent most of its time describing why the g might be in the cartel and never mind the fact that there's nothing in the record to indicate that mexican cartels tattoo their members the agency didn't provide any of the reasons that the government says are the reasons that e g is not a cartel it provided no reasons in fact it merely said that the petitioner was credible but that her the clear conclusion as your honor pointed out does not keep membership rolls or issue membership cards this determination and the lack of reasoned analysis about it is central to this case because it in fact each of the other important grounds when it comes to well founded fear of persecution whether he is in the cartel informs whether the threat is reasonable to the petitioner when it comes to reasonable and safe relocation it informs whether his cartel has the ability to locate her throughout the country whether rival cartel can do so and in terms of reasonability as i said the the court did not provide a reasoned analysis of it it didn't go through the factors that the statute requires it to do so which and oracle held was was enough for remand but more than that it rests its entire conclusion on a faulty reading of the case and what's more when when looking at say say it's clear that she did not relocate reasonably because she is although she may speak spanish and have a transferable set of human capital skills she is a single mother living with three children in a country where cartel violence has led to an increase  there's no cases will that say that those of need any cases you know we said well they can relocate because of that yes around and say they said that the woman for not relocate because she is a single woman who would be a target throughout the country which would be the same here that's not shown that was know was there any evidence to show that yes her out of the record shows that the cartel has cartels have power throughout the entire country and it also shows the