immigration judge is erroneous conclusion the gang related asylum claims fail as a matter of law as this court recently made clear in pure bach that is no longer the case the extent it ever was after the intervening decision  correct legal standard because this court's case is made clear that an applicant does not need to establish an entirely new basis for asylum in a motion to reopen instead he simply needs to present material new evidence of change circumstances in his home country would be he had applied for asylum originally which he did not do you would have a better argument before this court well i think his asylum claim is stronger now than it would have been in two thousand and three but obviously the in the motion to reopen it has nothing closed up and all events may i say was never determined back then that he was sent as some sort of social credit because he didn't ever ask for asylum right now but it was part of the it was the legal theory on which his prima denied in his motion to reopen the immigration judge said quite clearly that gang related claims fail as a matter of law and cited cases from the be i in from this court that this court and the b i have both now said that's an incorrect reading of those case is so i think on that point there can really no be no dispute but they they applied the wrong legal standard and in believing that a gang related claim simply cannot succeed no matter what evidence is in the record and what's important about that is what it was also that you had all of those it there was definitely there was a lot of things had happened to his family already back when he did not apply for asylum and they're just saying it's more of the same it's just that's what the problem is and so it's not really new certainly and i actually i mean there's clearly new evidence in the record here and i think that evidence is material under the standard establishing this is like the scene and multi and i would point in particular for instance to the two thousand time incident when he does he discovers after the fact from this incident for the first time that he's on a hit list that's distributed countrywide now to the extent that it might have been suggested back in two thousand and three that this was a localized problem that evidence is very material to the question of whether it is a localized problem whether it's something that he could avoid through relocation which is what session just this sort of generally is just apparently his mother got asylum rights that's correct  and i'm trying to from the standpoint that i did not make an adverse credibility but finding specifically but seem to have problems with some of the things but it's not there is certainly on the record that indicate that this that your client is basically a gang banger that caught brought all of this upon his family and there is absolutely nothing in the record to that effect there's never been any suggestion that he actually was a member of this gang and he has put forward all you know number of affidavits not just from his mother but from other individuals documenting that he was recruited for the gang refused to join and that's the basis for the persecution against him and members of his family have he ask the government to mediate this and if the mother is the cylon there wests are after any discussion about that i don't know if there's been any discussion i don't think there's any and you know interest indicated to us in looking at this again in light of the mother claim which she had had happened before the motion to reopen the government took the position that it was just not really relevant here and i mean i do think it's relevant in particular you know it's are troubling that the immigration judge and he never makes a credibility  credibility determination that goes out of his way to suggest you know that that my client is just lying about all of this when you have another immigration judge that just months before had heard testimony from his mother witnessed her tell the same story and found her credible and granted her asylum so for another immigration of to come along just look at the quote record and try and pick out you know here and there wherever he could some sort of minor in discrepancies and i think it just puts a kind of a askew on these proceedings that different and i think it's qualitatively different in a couple of ways you know he had one family member that had been murdered by the gang before two thousand and three but he has ended additional family members who have since been targeted targeted ten years after the fact which in and of itself shows you know to the extent that it might have been suggested that this problem went away ten years ago that's obviously not the case as i mentioned earlier i think that the they've had the hitlist the blacklist which was something that they didn't know about until two thousand and ten when the game came back to his sister in law's residence still looking for them changes you know is materials the analysis and that it effects the localized versus you know nationwide nature of the problem and then i would couple in with all of that  changes in the country have occurred and many respects over the past few years there was a coup in their spine and changes in leadership since and all evidence has just shown that crime and gang related crime and all crime has dramatically increased and i think there's actually a tie here i mean we had an expert a pine that there was a tie here because but the government itself is more than happy now to turn a blind eye to an increase in gang violence because the government is perpetrating its own acts of persecution and likes to use the gang violence for cover so there's this kind of connection between all of this and as even as gang related violence has actually decreased in a few other countries it's continued to increase in hunter s and the murder rate has gone up dramatically and is the highest now and refused to join and i think you know that that actively targeted aspect of it which also was satisfied in those cases when they were remain and it is important because it's what distinguishes them from somebody who just as you know i don't really want to join a gang i mean it's very different to that group be determined if it were a man and i think it's a question that can be dealt with agreement i mean i do want to be clear i think there's there's actually a legal error here that you know independent from any concept of abuse of discretion because the court th were wrong to believe that these claims failed as a matter of law regardless of what evidence you can check so i think the appropriate thing here would be to send it back down and say you know you need to really take another look at all of this in light of the fact that the legal standard that you thought addressing the particular social group is insufficient here this case is a motion to reopen the board can independently deny motion on any three dispositive grounds they based it no material on available for the board to again address the particular social group claim the court would need to find that the board abused its discretion well in the writing but in this case i asked counsel for petitioner what explains the different outcomes  see for the panel how this could this could be troubling but at the same time petitioner had an opportunity to apply for asylum he could have applied in two thousand and three he chose not to he chose to return and now as a result he has a higher burden in trying to get the agency to relook at his asylum claim this time around when the agency has discretion and instances to look at see if there's any assistance is there is there a reason that i know that's not in the record that he's not considered desirable so far as well i will be thankful to reactors yes i mean is there something in the rack or does the government think that he was really a gang banger and that this that his family got retaliated because of pat or what's what's really going on here in this case the government believes that you know first the board did not abused its discretion in considering the bases they did those bases arbitrary or irrational so they can be upheld second the government views this case if we're discussing his asylum claim as simply a matter of personal revenge and retribution all these incidents stemmed  court should consider or decide if if it's on remember we don't believe that it should be destiny also don't claim that he was kidnapped and that that that the people that family members that you know were told ten paper you know he was kidnapped by the gang and then the people that came to see him then they can identify the gang and that he does he does allege all those things and all those things happen though prior to his removal proceedings in two thousand and three when he could have applied for asylum at th but i guess that what you're just saying the whole reason for why this happened was a soccer match but there is more on the record and that isn't there there are additional facts in the record but it's our position that they all start from this this anger over losing the soccer match and then every incident after that was taken in revenge against him well what if there's if there was an adverse credibility is entitle to all in princes on they didn't you know that's why i'm asking they didn't say they didn't they didn't fight the i j seem to think that had problems with what he said but didn't make an adverse credibility so then don't we have to look at that people in his web you know whether we believe that you know whether that's a reasonable inference that his sister got you know was raped and you know i don't know they tried keller is someone else in the family was killed and there were just all sorts of things that happened that that it was a soccer match that in this case what what the board how old was that his motion was denied for previously unavailable material because that's an independent but bases they can make they don't even need to consider his prima facia asylum eligibility claim and making that determination that it they didn't consider here and they didn't need to consider it here  and to the to the extent he now alleges these new incidents even if the the agency found him credible that doesn't necessarily mean that his incidents are sufficient to meet his burden and here in addition his new evidence that he claims to this hit list and this incident and his sister they're not qualitatively different from his other events and that's what he needs to show he needs to show that these new incidents of qualitatively different than the existence that he could have provided have you filed for asylum these photos and put these threats in a physical piece of paper and a physical document like that is really not qualitatively different than the thoughts that existed before when really when they have t when the gang allowed him to leave for his uncle's funeral the gang took pictures of all of this family and explicitly told them that if he did not return that they would kill his family as a result the five hundred s they clearly took these threats seriously immigration judges decision country conditions and they you know don't need to necessarily address every incident but it's required that they give didn't consider the two thousand i have and it's it's our position that regardless this this case is about petitioners knowledge that the gang had made these threats and was was was interested  him and after him and he knew that at the time of his proceedings this is this is often called what your bigger concern here that if he gets relief then everyone will get really or what i mean it are you know this i'm just trying to sort of understand that because the facts you know there are the facts are that there are differently sympathetic and less he says the cause of all of it but i'm not i can't find anything in the record that says he's the cause of all of it and it seems that the government's plain pretty much hardball on this and so is it that this is going to open the can the you know on the standard every view that you're just saying you know that you know i'm just you know i see a lot we see a lot of these cases and i'm just sort of trying to understand the government's hardball position on this our position is simply that while ago or however long ago it was and it was denied and now he's found out later if he were found in our motion to reopen now would he have a better argument before the court he would have a better argument before the court because at that time he would have  that's his real problem from your perspective that you might look at him more favorably had he previously filed for asylum he's he's tasked with the burden the higher burden and he can't meet that burden ok i understand your argument  twenty years later could come all of these things and you know i think i think they're in the last step but what i was going to say is important here he was terrified that his mother was back in honduras and going to face violence and being murdered by the skank which is the reason that she decided under the circumstances it would be better for him to just go back there and try and protect her and he had raised this claim later when he learned that there was a possibility to raise something such as a motion to reopen and try and make these arguments on just a