the immigration judge in this case whose decision was adopted by the b i a denied my client's claim to relief on the grounds that she failed to establish that her brother's threats to kill her upon our return to sri lanka had a statutory nexus since her view of this particular issue involves the application of a savage legal principle sons of speed of fact it is subject to an overview in principle reliance on to be i petitioners counsel and then emphasized that he believed her but her but the counsel didn't correct that no the council said that it is based on being a christian woman who is being persecuted for doing this behavior with a focus on the group basis for her current that's correct but to be i a s in the unique position to consider legal claims based on disputed facts just as discord is so i our position is one is we're not precluded from arguing a different theory secondarily are worse emitting vet maintaining that your your claim is based on religion versus membership in a subgroup of that religion is a difference without a significant distinction well i mean what exhaustion doctrine all about that it doesn't require that the administrative agency understand the theory of the petitioners claim for relief so that it can address that theory based upon the factual record or do  i agree with that entirely but we did raise that for the b i a n a b i am entitled to consider other theories if you have an oral argument at the end of a case and to say your precluded from arguing anything else before the v a that's not what any of the regulations hold or require different than that is now in other words we have to be satisfied that the petitioner has in athens given the agency fair notice of what it is that  petitioner is alleging so that the agency can meet that request had on and rule on it otherwise were were left in a petition for review it's not quite the same as affirming the district court on any grounds supported by the record it's a different type of review on the decision of an administrator i agree with i entirely your honor except for the fact that the b i a as i've said is in a position to consider that and to to invite different legal arguments we've made that legal argument they declined to rule on it for the mere fact that they were reviewing the i j a decision because the b i a neglected to elaborate on this theory should not preclude us from maintaining that we preserve that issue for  just cited the case on the fact that it's not a there wasn't a pattern and practice against this group who are maintaining that there is an alternative variety of social group which is a just favor class which doesn't require the existence of this club i believe there is among them or at page one hundred one of the record with the state department knowledge the questions relating to family law are adjudicated in accordance with customary laws of ethnic and religious groups leading to discrimination in the application of different legal standards for women in sri lanka and serving the generally speaking women are just favorite class in sri lanka and my client is a member of a  subgroup of christian women who failed to to abide by those so called ethnic and religious laws but what do i look at to see that women who engag typically in a pattern dress better than a little bit of a circular fashion typically in the pattern or practice type of claim that the petitioner or the alien has six has experience no harm and no threat and she's saying my prong issue member of disfavor class our position if she is and two is there an individualized threat of persecution and there is no dispute that there is an individualized threat therefore that reduces the good on good morning your honor is coming from my name is margaret k taylor i represent the government in this matter if before i watch into the argument i need to clarify the way immigration law works because it appears that and there is another term of art called particular social group particular social group is the term of art that applies to the on account of analysis for withholding of removal withholding analysis in other words when an immigration judge analyzes statutory eligibility for withholding he first looks at credibility then he looks at risk of harm and then he looks whether that risk of harm would be on account of a cognize of all grounds the disfavored group analysis goes to the second prong the risk of harm and there was no denial of withholding based on risk of pattern and practice an individualized analysis that if she is a member of a particular ised group you still have to ask whether or not she's likely in this case of withholding but it's more likely than not that she would suffer persecution if she were to return to her country yes but that the decision was made not on the basis of whether she was likely to be hard to understand i'm my only my only concern you're right there has to be a group or particular he's group here and that's what my questions were designed to ask what is the group yes and your honor you're to go back to just favorite group analysis that was never raised at all and start of the immigration judge or in front of the board it's no where in the board three gets first first makes the first appearance in judge the group was just find as christian women who have been accused of running away and becoming pregnant by muslim men and these for this court the group is just find as women who refuse to conform to gender specific laws and social norms and there is no evidence in the record that such a group exists that's what my questions were were that's what i make you free my question  question but that's what my question was about where's the evidence that supports their there is absolutely no evidence in the record that such a group exists and there is very little if what's no evidence to support it clarify one thing with you yes the government decision you know complained about credibility right never specifically said i find her not credible right and i gather from the government's brief the government isn't going down that path of saying she's not credible he made an explicit credibility the government's focus is just as you put it here today that she hasn't satisfied except in that she's her testimony is credible she  makes there's first of all there is no jurisdiction but second of all if the court finds jurisdiction there is no no evidence in the record that the harm that she fears is on account of her religion i i went through the record very carefully looking for any references to her christian beliefs and i could only find three references to religion that the witness made altogether and none to christianity two of them were in the written application and eric to sixteen where she makes statements like her family she had a strict religious atmosphere in her family and then the other one is at one twenty nine and that is by the way she was not being cross examined when she said that it was an icon of religion but the immigration judge listened to her story and then said well now is this on account of your politics is this on account of what is it on account of and and he went through the five and then when he got religion said no it's not a kind of not a kind of religion has any other questions for me i have the all right thank you very much we urge the court either to dismissed for lack of jurisdiction  because it is based on a long which the government has petitioned to have on bank we're hearing and that's still pending thank you very much thank you could be a disfavored group is one that's what i maintaining and secondarily although there's not direct evidence that women who engage in x premarital fairs and get pregnant are a member of a dis group the state department reported tabs on equivocally that women generally who are members of ethnic and religious groups are just favorite groups subject to discrimination and different legal standards and  all women who are member of pacific ethnic and religious groups that may in fact be all women and finally religious grounds we've relied on bad on in re essay where a woman was persecuted based on her failure to dress appropriately this was her expression of religious opinions so it was not required that somebody actually articulate religious opinion to be persecuted on that account they can engage in behavior that considerate with those religious ten and that's what my client was perceived to have done thank you ana thank you very much your time is up now to will be submitted