petitioners are a mother and her three sons who fled el salvador for the united states each of them seeks asylum and withholding of removal based on the number of particular social groups or the s g as well as relief under the convention against torture which i removal claim should be remanded because the board failed to conduct the requisite then overview of the cognitive ability of certain c s g s the nd is that petitioners asylum and withholding the removal claim should further be remanded because the immigration judge or with other evidence in the record there would be no need for experts the board therefore erred in giving dr foreman's testimony reduce weight and the court there remanded and the same outcome is warranted here for the same reason that respondents answering twenty  attempts to distinguish fact a from this on but there really is no distinguishing them they are squarely on point with each other the i j a here like the boarding to schiavo gave dr dormans testimony limited weight due to a purport but matter of a p wasn't argued before the th circuit here in the briefing but i think the harm that what a p indicates is that the particular social group can't be defined exclusively by the harm here it's not the harm is relevant in the sense that it's one of the tattle as for how the gang members may view the gang members may view a particular victim as their property but the definition of the group is that being viewed as property of the gang members as opposed to the harm itself of having been victimized right but then i write sounds like right there in the definition of the group i you i believe so and i and i believe including with dr foreman's testimony that that is establish that that status of the gang members using somebody as a victim is something that is perceived by society as a whole in a way that you might recognize that somebody is no so pays further reinforces this notion as there the applicant similarly had testified that she reported her harm to authority figures and they did not help respondents answering twenty eight j letter times to draw don't have to establish that it was the sole reason or the primary reason there's no obligation to rule out other potential motivations mixed motives type case the question here is whether the evidence compels the conclusion that the gang members percy used for i am to be homosexual and that was at least one central reason st phylum for all reason for withholding of removal and i think the record as detailed in our brief as stablish is that it in while there is no evidence in the record suggesting that gang members in el salvador utilize those sorts of homophobic slurs and that molest their victims when they don't believe that the victim is homosexual whereas dr foreman founded projection of that sort of perhaps us cultural behavior onto the gang members but there's no evidence in the records and dr foreman says he's not aware of that in particular so there's no evidence porting it and there is and they hung up on her they said we can't help you that definitely would have been relevant information that the board should have addressed when adjudicating catholic here it's unclear whether or not if somebody refuses to help an extortion think it seems that the the board actually did consider all the evidence in this case and that would not be a reason for the man there any other questions to courage the panel to look back at the briefs which explains the insufficiency of the big decision it may have been seven pages long but it was primarily discussing setting up the legal standards and not actually discussing the facts which is membership and as the panel picked up on there's a statement here by the persecutors law molesting him when he said we are doing this because we know you like it because we know you like speed we know you like men and can touch like a woman under levy holder that is