the judge did not make a finding of nexus and i believe that the confusion is the as of the social visibility requirement the social visibility requirement itself invite adjudicator to insert a nexus analysis into that analysis and so i think that the confusion lies there in addition we're not sure if the immigration judge found that the mr guzman failed the social distinction test also known as social visibility test or particularities we would argue that the the better approach further about whether the immigration judge that immigration was did not make a finding in excess all of the pinpoint citations involved board cases where the issue was social visibility social distinction as well as a nd circuit case where the issue was a little busy ability in addition to be confusion that this requirement of the board and not being singled out that sounds a lot like the board's analysis of the social distinctions social visibility regarding particular social group could you  ddress the passage that said age of eleven the immigration judge's opinion your short appendix nineteen which doesn't use the word nexus but certainly looks to me a lot like annex crimea no nexus the record does not support that the harm he fears is directed at him as a member of any particular social has to fight even though i know why he and his brother were targeted initially cetera that i believe is talking about out generalized that there was no inkling out of him and so that's the social distinction in analysis that you know generalized fear of gang violence is not necessarily it doesn't put you into the social distinction requirement of a particular social group and i would just note the dodged a state any particular social group so i do i would agree that the language used by the judge is not clear but i would argue that her pen i citations to case law are are very clear in that it was the board arguing social distinction and disability and so he again lies the workable inus of the board's requirements is that that the nexus in the social visibility social distinction analysis sound very similar and it just shouldn't be that hard for non citizens to figure out how the judge ruled because again if the judge did rule on nexus and it wasn't brought up on appeal then it is exhausted and i think the prior attorney that represented mr guzman on appeal thought also aggrieved that the judge didn't rule on nexus and so the language i do believe is not as clear as it could be in the immigration  following the murder of his brother and that is also factually incorrect there was been his after his brother had been eaten and before he had passed away mr  guzman remained in his house in his brother's house in acapulco and stated that there were people looking for him because there was a pending problem then he moved to his hometown again  oh and he stated that men had shot home and he mentioned that the two men dressed very similarly to the two men that he saw beating up his brother and then he also stated that he had heard after he had moved away from his home town he stated that he heard a lot of people who knew him saying that people were looking for him in their hometown because he was that witness to his brother's murder and then on cross examination did mention that two people went around in the neighborhood asking for that was not family we don't believe there is gentle evidence is who or what immigration judge is finding that nobody looked for him after  the after his brother was murdered there wasn't any evidence since he moved to the united states about fourteen years ago that anybody had threatened his family or looked for him was there  believe he has even got a call from his father in two thousand and thirteen was that there was some gang activity but but it wasn't there wasn't anything directly linking that to the recognized any particular social groups around the world in the last several years in the targets of persecution i'm not certain about that i wouldn't say i don't want to say for certain that they haven't because it's not maybe have gotten to the level of hero but i'm not certain whether or not they and are you saying it was not raised in the order well he has not stated that  with the rest of your human the record does not compel the conclusion that mr garcia could not reasonably relocate and within mexico the question is whether he could safely relocate and whether it's reasonable for so expect him to do so after the his brother was killed he went home for a year and there was a shooting but then he re show that he's able to relocate don't we don't believe that the nexus argument has been weighed because the argument is that the immigration judge never made a finding and so under generate should be remanded the judge he decided that in the  instance in terms of the instrument relocation the judge also did not find that she was safe in pueblo and mexico city the judge found that there was no attempt to locate him in the years immediately after his brother was murdered so this court can't substitute but it leaves when the premise of the judge's finding is was incorrect to begin with and so also under chinnery we would argue that needs to go to the remanded to the judge so that the judge can make that finding and correct arguments before this court