opposition but the opposition is with respect to the terms as i understand it is that correct correct i just don't want it to be such an open and where the board would write a decision kind of say the same so perhaps we could focus the argument on what terms the man should be should be conditioned on is that does that make any sense guatemala could be a cognizable social group so starting off with the social group they should recognise that this is already been held by both the board and this court that it's a cognizable social group and you want us to say just say that out right as opposed to but yeah i agree with you but you know i guess i'm just still talking about within the particular social group analysis particularly is one component of it correct isn't there another component that's totally other dress there's three there's yes immutability and which is not an issue and the social distinction ok that's what i'm talking about we don't have a ruling from the agency on that and so when we when the riemann have to encompass wouldn't have to give the agency the ability to say we're going to look at that in the first instance as opposed to  even address the social distinction issue to be clear on what is social distinction and not to deviate right so they could be using their own law which is looking at their country can this report looking to see their specialized law that is addressing women and also victims of  violence and so to bolster the argument that social distinction exists and i think it's clear on this record that there is social distinction i understand that this court wants to get a first crack at it i agree however with the with those specific instructions and  mean that that seems to me to be squarely before us yes ok and then you want us to go further and say they didn't she was wrong the next is to correct yes and there's for reasons very clear from the record why there was a nexus right so the agency had said that she was a victim indiscriminate crime that these are random crimes are all the crimes of course only have to do with sexual assault sexual assault rape sexual harassment and there was never anything else like she was getting rob being extorted it was only sexual crimes it was very clear the type of crime that they were going after her because of her sex so that's very clear also the country condition port again states how women are treated and how the government is unable to protect them and even though they have special legislation how they can force and also there is the all her testimony right so when these horrible things were happening to her they were indicating you know her uncle this is what happens to women when she was trying to be abducted i want you for me like i want to be my wife the classmate the other rape by the gangs this is what happens to a woman's what they're for so there was at least four different reasons to say why there was a clear nexus of this is happening to her because of her sex because she's a female ok and so we correct them correctly agency on particularly we give some directions as to what they need to do on social distinction we say you're wrong potentially our nexus of the nexus seems to me that's contingent upon what that particular social group ends up  conditional report shows that the government of el salvador is an able right so they are making some efforts but those efforts are are not being they can't carry out those efforts are not being successful there's still a lot of problems with being able  enforce the legislation there's been all public judges that say that they're not going to enforce certain legislation that were made specifically for women so this is a widespread problem that is not being addressed so i feel that that even record it wasn't addressed judge i don't think that matter maybe is really applicable in this case but i mean the issue of if it's a private individual is there do we have to show that the government is an able or unwilling to protect i mean i think that  to protect her correct and has anyone made any finding no i don't think that there was any findings made on that so would that have to be addressed yes that can be addressed but also again within light of the  rules are in place which is you look at the country conditions and you see that this is not that the country will solve it was unable to protect women from violence please the court manual for the respond in this case briefly i do want to apologize to the court and mrs bars after filing a motion at advancers the proceedings normally my office would have done that at the briefing stage it didn't happen here but we took a fresh look at it prior distinction needs to be addressed it has and then i would agree with your honor that i don't believe the agency discussed nexus here the decision is not a model of clarity what the i j a said is this group is too big to be particular we agree that that does not was stand scrutiny under a predominant right what i would request the court to do and of course it's your prerogative is that  can't address nexus in a vacuum till you decide what the particular social group is i believe what happened here is the discussion of nexus by the i j a happened when he was discussing humanitarian asylum that's when you discuss criminal conditions in el salvador and is part of the decision discussing particularity he just stopped when he said it was too broad end of story so i don't believe he reached the  as far as the board there is a cite to a case or two with a parent had a quote that suggests that they looked at nexus but you cannot look at nexus in this case unless you consider i'm sorry  we agree that simply because conduct is criminal that does not exclude the possibility of a nexus determination we need to have a mixed motive or a motive analysis that clearly hasn't happened here and i think it should happen so we would request that the remain included direction to for the board to convey to fully consider once they decide the cognize ability of this proposed group can i ask you just about finding that the respondent has not established that she is a member of a cognizable particular social group so that you couldn't just stop right there but then it says or that the harm she suffered was due to her membership in a particular soldier going i don't see what if that's not a nexus determination what we're reviewing the board's decision i don't i mean we're trying to figure out what do we have the authority to appoint on and i if the board wants to spout off about another aspect of the analysis that maybe the i g didn't expec address don't we then we review the board's decision don't we have to tell the board no you were wrong to say that because it's right exactly so i don't have to correct that if we think that's incorrect i don't disagree with i don't think there has  to the extent the board affirms the i j s nexus determination i think that that's not an accurate assessment by the board is that we tom and same thing here that i don't disagree with that notion and i think that i think henri manned the board needs engage again that's not super clear to me but in arguing against a finding here by the board on nexus is the fact that you cannot make that determination without unless until you have i don't i don't think this court this court can make a nexus finding based on what's in front of it i think the board has to do that in the first instance but what could we say and why i'm like that here if you think that we should say otherwise but if the book i j or the and work to determine that all women in el salvador constitute a cognizable particular social group then i don't see any basis for the agency on remand to say that nexus there's no nexus that's what i'm trying to i say we're not telling you you must find this to be a particular soldier but if you do don't come back here saying there's no nexus because ok you've already teed it up and we're telling that's wrong and if you say that i hope you don't and here's why ok because that's a analysis so that's that's what i'm saying i don't understand the board i'm sorry if the court determines that there's a nexus here based on the record i think you're going beyond what the the board actually decided so but if you if you did it's your conclusion your honor that the board considered all the nexus evidence and whatever i just think that that's kind of a thin statement that you quoted to me i understand why you reach your conclusion  question i'm just looking at and i don't really know what to make of it other than there you go i don't know what there except i don't believe they did a full fledged nexis analysis and if you were to make that full such analysis on your own in the first thank you and thanks for sticking around in the smoking you've been here as long as we have i think yeah ok i just want to address that last issue because i do think that the board of immigration appeals did address the nex are available to victims of indiscriminate violence unless they're singled out for bias on account of so they discussed the nexus but they dismissed it quickly because they just said all these are random crimes therefore there's no nexus so the court i would think is definitely