grand thank you believe petition in this case a citizen of brazil apply for asylum in the united states because she fears returns to the country in which her ex partner brutally raped her and threatened to rape his daughter over an extended period of time escaping only after reporting his illegal activity to the police the immigration judge in this case now petitioners testimony was credible that are suffering did constitute persecution and that primarily because the immigration judge found in our favor on that issue found that it was a cognizable social group and then in the interim when matter baby was decided in the government was aware of that and chose not to raise that before the b i had they had four months to raise it and didn't do it and then the b i am issuing its decision acknowledged matter baby even said that it didn't affect their decision in any way so neither the immigration judge nor the her immigration court it certainly hasn't gotten rid of domestic violence as a ground furthermore the immigration judge here did an extensive analysis of of the social group at circuits and perhaps that will be something that you have another opportunity to address but let's move on from the cognitive ability of that issue since i think your position to be that it was not his decision was not expressly overturned by the and and therefore i it's not really for us as to another issue where i'm curious  the issue of the the social group that was very similar to the one d here was granted and then be a matter of a b was issued and then this court issued a decision and this court decided to remand the case back to the immigration judge to make a full decision on whether the social group fit was sufficiently particular socially distinct in light of a b so we asked that at a minimum the case be remanded  state report in this case and did a full review the evidence and there was never an issue as to whether the government had any was able to control the violence that was domestic violence that it acknowledge existed but was systematically under reported and and not dealt with in the country so the immigration judge certainly didn't never found that the government could  is why is she a member of a group that was constituted women in domestic relationships who are on able to lead those relationships are we going to believe you believe was it encompasses the issue of whether she believes she could go to the authorities or not so it touches on on acquiescence but it's really a matter of whether she's a member of a member of this group and and which goes back to that kind of arming core point in this case which is that persecutor may have more than one central motivation for his or her actions and whether one of those central reasons d is more or less important than another is irrelevant it is impossible in this case to determine that  least one reason why the petitioner fears going back if it isn't the fact that she was a victim of over a year of physical and sexual violence you say it's impossible why is that  saying that she did suffer persecution that persecution was based on the rape and the violence that she went through that violence occur prior to her reporting the issue to the police so the immigration judge here is already ruled that she in fact suckered persecution which could not have been the result of her reporting the issue to the police so in fact under eight c f r to a point  group and i think the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that she there is evidence creepy tiddly throughout the record that she gave into a sexual advances and  didn't even understand that much of what was going on was actually rape because there was some point at which he gave in and didn't know that that was actually a crime that he was committing she refused to take  medication or treat mental health issues in brazil because she felt that if she was under the influence of medication that she wouldn't be able to help her daughter sort of nd assume we think she's a member so what if the testimony hypothetically was i'm not afraid at all about what will happen if i go back based on my past persecution i i just i prefer the economic opportunities here i think we would say well that's not going to cut it right that doesn't that doesn't make backing a presumption  some not based on the pastors so why is this different than the hypothetical because with what the government is trying to say is that and this is again goes back to arco point core point which is that the governor is trying to say that the act of reporting him to the police on this one issue because she felt that the rape wouldn't be taken seriously and didn't report among other issues she reported on this issue just so she could get away and if we if we view that as completely disassociated from her domestic violence that is that is completely illogical she went she was the victim of over a year of domestic violence and found any way that she could to get out of that violence to say you know it's been shown over and over again that victims of mexico violence will find some way to get out of that including by retaliating against their abuser or what have you and that the abuser views that views that betrayal as a betrayal of their relationship not simply as a retribution for the act of calling police so we cannot get we cannot separate over a year of domestic violence from one incident it is all one in the same she did it the least she possibly could to get out of this  the the issue of nexus which are only briefly addressed sure so your honour's if if this court did find that she were a member of the particular group  once again it would be the the fact that she is a member of that group and was a member of that group for such an extended period of time the fact that she said she was afraid of retribution at the hearing doesn't doesn't link her from the domestic violence and doesn't show that she doesn't fear the domestic violence and that the fact that she was a victim a membership in her group the day that she was in a domestic relationship with this person the fact that she reported him to the police doesn't break back link she says she was in this group for a very long time she fears that if she went back that she would fall enforcement in your argument is yeah but logically you can't separate that from the past well not exactly are she there she repeatedly stated that she feared that if she tried to leave then he would just find her and bring her back those she actually stated that in the record so in this instance in which she did actually manage to leave the relationship she had previously stated she feared that if she did that she would be concerns about inability to relocate yes your honor the fact that she feared that if she tried to leave he would find her and bring her back the fact that he was involved with extensive drug in gone illegal activity she expressed that she was afraid that he had a network and that he could find her he tried to leave he tried to actually community with her after she left and came to this country has tried to communicate with her family and other  members in the community it's a small community about four thousand people in brazil he's trying to find her and see what's going on that way so he's trying these he's done what he can and can't do anything while she's here but it will be pretty evident that if she went back that would that would no longer be the case and once again that it's the government's burden the government shifts the burden they were presented any evidence to the contrary it has this fit into our traditional understanding of  nexus and typically there is an animists toward the the group because of that the the identified characteristic is is that is the persecution here really tied to reason that chief the petitioner entered into a consensual relationship with her user in two thousand and twelve and then so was in a domestic relationship over here and then in two thousand and fourteen the violence began the violence began because she was in a in a relationship with him and in brazil there is there was evidence sense of evidence shown that in brazil domestic violence is widespread that they that the government has h he abused her because of the relationship that they had and the relationship that he had with her daughter that became an issue in the case as well that he started to threaten her daughter because she lived in if he wasn't to petitioners knowledge doing this to any other person any other woman he was doing this to her because she lived in the home and he felt that he had power over her and he used that power to to rape her and harm so that the violence that he committed was directly connected to the relationship status that they had and that that status be limited or was somewhat weak in cases based on this it didn't eliminate them so the issue would go back to the i j a to look at the facts look at the country conditions and make a decision on that issue we'd further ask that the that the facts in this case be re of the facts regarding her domestic violence be reevaluated again the petitioner only has to prove that one motivating factor of her persecution was that she was a member of a particular group so if it while this while the i that one reason for her fear was retribution there was no addressing the fact of her other fear which is which is the persecution that she already suffered and advanced that how ok thank you i didn't take the next step that next sentence you might expect to see right and if you did you would have a much clearer kind argument for us right and simply lacked a conclusion and when we're not i'm certain that the and had two children with her husband she separated from her husband at some point likely by two thousand and twelve and was able able to leave that relationship she started again  domestic partners who weren't able to leave that relationship there twenty years earlier when she was dating this person in a non abusive relationship she was able to end the dating relationship or that she ended their relationship her or her marital relationship again where there's no suggestion that that was an abusive relationship why or why and why is her leaving those relationships probative in any way of her ability to leave an abusive domestic relationship when considering the global group of women i'm able to leave their relationships i think pastoralism arab and her ability to leave  relationship and isn't the very nature of the p s g it is being claimed that the psychological abuse and that the compulsion to remain and the fear of consequences of leaving the relationship are what keeps someone in that relationship when they may have been able to leave some other not abusive relationships though the issues are expressed why the kind of cases are very sympathetic however he returned out of prison actually had resources she was able to go to her father and had the resources to to relocate and she chose to come to the united states  in the record that she she represented and she was unable to relocate without him finding her and if she feared that he would find her anywhere she free she did express that fear  and subjectively sure she has that there is no objective evidence he may have been dealt drugs but we know nothing about what kind of drug cartel he belonged to or the reach he had beyond being acquainted with the people in our rural town mary j find that she testified credibly and heard her testimony was entitled to  finding of past persecution with nexis established membership established in that case there's a presumption that comes into play and the government then has the burden and to disprove  error of law since they argued past persecution they tried to put in evidence of a nexus and membership list of past persecution but the i g n p i didn't address those issues as to what happened united states d to substantiate her feelings that she had so there are certainly evidence in addition to country condition evidence so there was both subjective and objective evidence submitted in the case and the government the immigration judge found that she was no when this court asked the government is the immigration judge found that she had a fear of leaving the relationship and the government responded by saying there was no objective evidence of the name of specifically the name of this group the issue really here is that the petitioner was was in a domestic relationship and harmed and  persecution because she was d in that relationship so whether the name of the group is women brazilian women in a domestic relationship or brazilian women in a domestic relationship who are unable to leave