please there are many was make a shout and i represent the petitioner in this case and i am going to make three of my of my arguments a status as a gang member and our argument is the petitioner should be granted withholding ever mobile based on his status as an impudent gang member however the petitioner never brought that before the i j nor the b a a because there is case law that forecloses that argument so policy reasons that somebody that is associated with violent activity that that can't be an inherent quality that is needed for a particular social group so just because i know that there is a case on that says that you know each particular social group is based on the facts but the policy that's behind that doesn't change and it hasn't changed so that i j the immigration judge in this case still would have to night at that particular social group based on the policy reason so it's not fact based because it's political or it's based on policy and everybody and what about what significance does it have if any in your view of the  chance you know he never raised that's right well sorry argument as he didn't raise it because it would have been a few tile and it is based on one circuit this in this case the b i said that there was no clear error in that i g s decision that the persecution was not based on political opinion there is th circuit precedent is predicated on another be a good case is that just merely says that nexus issues involved facts that it's not based on facts so if anything and nexus is a mix issue of one  would still be analyzed and ar something but the case law going back to about eighty five dollars or eighty nine dollars started with ada no go and that alice is for next issues so you're right there does seem to be some discord with and the circuit about what is the appropriate standard here but the only published mind circuit case that i have found on point says that it's a no go standard even though it's was funding for mayor and he was active in the campaign there were times where he was harmed while he was and his campaign activity or on or around the location of his campaign activity further that abuse by the salvadoran police increased substantially after it was made aware to opposing political candidate that the petitioner was associated with his uncle who was campaigning for the mayor is other evidence of the ringback record that he was targeted because it is you have to use yes there it's also over but it would be our position that there are multiple motives why the police abuse that issue there in this case and the circumstantial evidence certain people point to a political opinion basis as well in addition to probability of future persecution in contrast with cat protection there is no burden shifting relocation is one of several factors that the agency takes into consideration when determining whether or not there's a clear probability of future torture so here the immigration judge considered not only relocation but also considered country conditions of it isn't considered  sunday we said that exhaustion is excused if the agencies position appeared based on a presidential decision to be with the presidential decision of the board here is to for i read that of leaving open other kinds of points and a g although it is true that you as a general matter a particular social group claims are fact he appears to lay out a free g because an r t a got it was a former gang member in a g it was someone who was perceived to be affiliated with gangs whereas in this case petitioner was harmed because he was mistakenly so that they can be parsed out examined in the st instance before they come to the sco have stated a particular social groups need to be broad view on a case by case basis that just because similar groups have been rejected does not need that it can be rejected in a new case stated that it needs the term and case by case and any b g to the extent that he did not articulate that it has to be on a case by case basis and he did make that clear that it does the and that it should not be read as a to the abuse he suffered as a child one at the hands of his family members no other groups were articulated to say after the fact based on the immigration judge's decision and the board's decision that now factor and whether somebody has to be denied or grants a capital action but although the burden is on the petitioner to prove eligibility for cat nevertheless the burden is not