years of abuse that mr nonda suffered at the hands of her husband she credibly the immigration judge found her credible when she testified her husband burned her with an iron later on fire raped her on two occasions subjected her to ongoing physical and everything it seems to me that what the agency found was that the petitioner was able to leave her husband so why is that not reasonable and why the petitioner testimony concerning the number of times that she left her husband or that her husband left her so if if it seems to me that if that's supported by substantial evidence and we don't even get to the social group yes i understand i believe your honor the immigration judge when she considered that leaving the relationship was not part of the cycle of violence i would argue that based on the article submitted the numerous articles submitted for the country of el salvador it would support the fact that this is a very common cycle of being in the domestic violence re y doesn't her husband limp with some other woman and have children with some other woman at this point at the end of the relationship and again i would argue that this would support the petitioners argument where though  he had another relationship with another child he still considered her her property and she testified in court that he would come at any time enter her home even though he was living with somebody else and had another child and told her i can come whenever i want i can do whatever i want and because he she was married to him and she was not just citing it in the st instance so tell me what is the standard review of the agency's findings the fact decision wherein the only reason the appeal was dismissed was because of a change in law because a r c d which she relied on at the time she submitted her application in by the time which still existed when the briefs were submitted has now been overruled but that's not entirely true because the b i said sounds like she couldn't leave her husband so then they didn't even really get to the social group so if that's supported by substantial evidence then doesn't really even matter what the social group is because she's not in that social group as defined well i would argue that in the present when she i would argue that she at the time she filed the argument would be she if the r c id had not been over overturned by also group would be better for you because it sounds like a b is worse for you well i'm sorry can you repeat the question to our right so if you're saying that the social group now would be defined differently  attorney general said pain in the matter of a b under my recognition of prepared the petitioners proposed social group completely i would state that it's not because part of just basically assumed that she was a member of a protected group is that right i would agree or that it or that it or that the group that they identified was cognize a bull but what they found was that she was not a member of that group because she was we can only overturn the the agency's decision if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion correct correct all right so the as i read the record the the i believe it was she got a restraint somebody got a restraining order against her husband i'm not mistaken but it was another ground to guess when the police were involved where the family support i'm sorry the family support so what is it about the factual record here that compels a contrary conclusion to the one reached by the agency by the  mean there were periods there were periods of separation and i gather your whole point is at least with respect to separation and his continual contact with her it's all part of the cycle of domestic violence as we recognized in hernande earlier hernandez decisions that right if we were to can if we were to agree with you would go back to the agency in that right yes your honor and the agency would then take up the issue of can i ask you about the mediation because you asked for mediation and said that the other side didn't have a problem with it and then the other side jumped in and said that they did what was that situation your honor  i didn't i wasn't the attorney who briefed the matter i my intent was to reach out to the agency earlier unfortunately things went downhill really quickly in the last couple last month or so and i reached out to the agency i did i was speaking with attorney well have who was assigned to the case previously she indicated that she would not be opposed to mediation and i said and that's how why i prepared and we submitted the motion unfortunately after it was submitted to them formed and i'm sorry she informed us that i guess she had been overruled by i don't want to misstate maybe someone above her and that she had to in essence what was your position on that  well you wonder on that kathleen i would argue that rape and attempted murder which she had you know she showed up with a gun to her home at one point and the police didn't even come out to arrest him i would argue that these clearly rise to the level of cost torture that the evidence as well as the fact that three months restraining order for someone who was sexually assaulted you know the husband shows up with with a gun which i would argue in the united states would rise to attempt a murder terrorist threats assault with a deadly weapon he receives only a three month restraining order make clear that the salvadorian government is likely to acquiesce that restraining order was not sought by her record but by someone else no i it was it was sought by her because even though they had that incident where the i believe the cousin when to the police department to report it because she was very afraid to the instead of the police coming to her home they said that she had to go to the police station to make the report because she was the victim and that's how and and the test and the record before the immigration judge she testified that she informed the judge of the past of the use of what had taken place what she had suffered and only a three month restraining order was issued withholding withholding under the cats pretty quite simply she thought she had the opportunity to propose a particular social group and the board assumed its existence subsequent developments may or may have changed  that but here we can simply assume that that group exists to women to bethink violence victims who cannot leave their partners in el salvador the problem was that lutheran and demonstrated that she was able to leave her partner unlike the alien family her friends kept telling her in a r c g a this is a matter for your marriage this is a marital issue and we won't get into it but that's not what happened here here people actually helped her and she was able to leave her husband and ultimately tell them i'm not just leaving you i'm taking your kids and she's super custody right right i hear your honor what i mean to say is not that she was able to leave him and then he came back she was able to leave him and then he didn't come back to the police and then he gave up and he took up a relationship with another woman as i understood the record the only time you see him he didn't come back  or the family dispute proceedings in court so i think there was a custody issue in play with this judge as well but he's right regarding when her custody when the restraining order expired he was right back at his old antiques he was back but he did not move in with her the domestic relationship did not so what's your position on the i heard that there was a situation mediation talked about what's your position on task yeah my colleague so i have  the record evidence compels the contrary conclusion it would go back to the agency and what would be on in play at that point what would be in play would be all of the really all of the elements of  still be in play we'd be wanting to know st of all is the caucus social group is you member of the group is the country unable or unwilling to protect her because of course when we're talking about a rd party asylum claim rd party persecutor you know we have to look for some m but it didn't foreclose these claims completely but she could bring in muster enough evidence that she actually belongs to a particular social group that's defined with particularity and social disability that has this immutable characteristic that she cannot get out of it because of society s for people who cannot help with their own country either because the country is persecuting them or because they can't stop the prosecutor and that's why in a case like this the thing we're looking at in terms of the particular social group is whether it's immutable whether she was actually able to leave the husband or unable to leave the husband or the abuser because society will let her because the police won't help her because her family and friends tell her that's part of your marital relationship and you just have to deal with it that's what that's what we look for in a case like this and here i know petitioner has pointed to a record of showing that many women in el salvador cannot escape these relationships but that wasn't petitioner's experience unlike a lot of these women she was able to go to the police she was able to go to court and win custody of her child she are you actually a member of this group and the answer was no well let's say if you are a person that because there are a lot of women in this country that one would say it's not that our system can down domestic violence in there and they can get restraining orders they can do a lot of things and but there are people from their own minds that they can't seem to get out of it are you saying that isn't enough the defender on mine she doesn't feel like she can get out of it we have to look outside of that i guess i'm hearing you ask us to let outside of her mind i don't think we know you i don't think we need to look outside of her mind she testified specifically that she was no longer listening to him i was no longer listening to him i was going to leave him and i think he noticed that i was no longer intimidated by him which is why he left me receive the physical abuse he wanted to see the kid and she ultimately said no you can't see the kid in fact i'm moving to the united states could you only have just a few minutes left could do you want to address the can't claim torturing her or raping her or killing her they did come to her aid when she asked and she didn't always ask and i understand that's a really hard thing to do with a domestic relationship but the evidence that we have before us shows that when she did she got it which means that the police are not going to that she at all and i don't think that that should be assumed that the judge did based on the record even when he was living with somebody else he continued to return she needed his permission to leave the country and she had to lie to even take that from him and again i would argue the police did not protect her if the testimony says they came to look for him he fled and they never again even looked for him for four to arrest him for showing up with a gun and threatening her and then when she when they didn't even come out to take a report they required her the victim who seeking help to come in and requested briefly on the kat disagree i respectfully disagree i believe there's enough evidence that the police did not come to her aid for the reasons stated i just stated thank you all right thank you thank you vance the reprieve your arguments and your willingness to work with us on  virtual thank you thank the matter submitted thank you