thirteen in terms of when they threatened him these were not bizarrely ordinary threats these threats were specifically charged in a way that references homosexuality were sexually charged yes and also violence was committed against him was one of  sexual assault which would be particularly looking in general at el salvador less common that men are straight men would be the victims of sexual assault i was looking for that i didn't see anything express that str men are attacked so what are we what's the evidence you point to that allows us to infer that yes in fact this is this is something he's suffering that it's gay men who suffer a not not not straight manner yes i think on the record before the court it is a little bit of a sticky issue without expert testimony to do a pile on that you have his testimony in addition in addition certainly there's no question from the record that is something the record there is only the record industry that we have his testimony this guy being the general conditions of discrimination faced by gay men a failure by the police to take reports of crimes against gay people as seriously as they fundamentally an extortion threat lots of people it's an awful thing that happens it's horrible not minimizing it but it's not clear that the extortion is because of or on account of his sexuality as opposed to something that's suffered more generally yes you are certainly exertion is a widely used means of gain control and revenue raising for the gangs so is that your fundamental calling him all of the it's not your honor it's that the discriminant the attacks going back for a long period of time they were specifically exchange the i j a asks you the petitioner your client why did they target his response for being gay there are country we are very much discriminate against all gays fast forward they find him credible gay people are targeted all we've put did not believe that there was specific targeting of gay individuals because of their sexual orientation that would cut dramatically against his credibility it would be difficult for the judge did not agree with that point and then turn around and find him credible in general without i don't believe it is your honor i did what is it this is a claim on the basis of sexual orientation and proceeds sexual orientation but the persecution that satisfies the standard withholding removal is your claim that the  relevant persecution here you've pleaded it is extortion is the persecution of the threats that come with the extortion i would say that more specifically the way i would put in i did not represent him below your honor is that it is disproportionate extortion on the basis of his sexual orientation as well as sexual assault and rape ok let's say we think that the sexual assault claims are stronger than the extortion ones i understand your argument but the guy on the extortion issue head on the basis of the claims being in his sexual orientation and proceeds actually indeed when you point us to the best things in the record to preserve this as a distinct ground for relief if you good to see his testimony to go back in details civil i think it certainly could have been framed in more detail in hindsight your honor but i think that it was sufficient to preserve it where correct your honor he does we submit a good bit of evidence with respect to the country conditions yes you are some of them are a little lower nebulous talking about the northern triangle as a as opposed to specifically o salvador but there's a good bit of reference to the m s thirteen in the and the m eighteen groups correct yes that's correct i think in the in the records submitted that it's sufficient on those bases and while the testimony there was a listen from responded however in actual argument before the court i persecution on tat it's going to depend on torture but all whether this was torture but also the probability and the board found that it was speculative that anyone was going to torture him so what what's your response to that speculative is finding it would only knock out the cat it wasn't in the context of withholding but did was there a factual finding that underpin this before the board it wasn't found in the  decision so what do we do with that it would be dispositive if it were properly rescinded found it would be dispositive the cat claimed whether or not this was you know on account of sexual d orientation anything else of its would not fifty on perhaps a difficult to implement in practicality assumption of whether something is more likely than not to happen did your client where did your client put in evidence that rose d to the more likely than not standard you have continued threats  heard in addition you previously have the assault at his home town that he moved three hours away in an attempt to avoid this for internal relocation as a very young man and you had another saw at the hands of a different organization so if you look at the of those issues over a long stretch of time you have targeting again on the same grounds the base of the sexual orientation appropriate but for example we don't have references in the i j a b i a to dealing with the sexual assault issues we have discussion that seems entirely focused on the extortion stuff and then we have on the cat claim for the st time to be a mix of speculative finding but it's not piggybacking on anything and i just decision so you're asking a lot of the presumption of regularity where there's just no discussion you know we expect some minimal level of articulation if we're seriously concerned about with the board even considered this stuff is in the proper course to send it back not necessarily the grant but at least for the court to open for them to openly advert to i consider country conditions report probability those d issues because i don't see it here your honor if the court does feel that there's insufficient basis for you to understand why you would want to send it back i will think is it really your position harm being suffered is extortion everyone gets so if that's right then this comes down to an issue of why the i j a and or presented with a distinct sexual salt ground for relief that they ignored or they properly ruling because this was the extortion was the only thing that was before them what's your position on whether in fact there was enough here to preserve a sexual assault claim motivated by his sexual orientation well i think  on the extortion claim right because again the testimony is not entirely clear if the claim is i was extorted because i was gay their reasoning seems to go on and say yeah you were extorted but everybody is extended but if it is if it is properly before us that sexual assault not just motivate us which but the sexual assault is a distinct kind of harm being suffered because he's gay and and if we can infer from the evidence that straight men are not being assaulted the same way or same rate that the agency did consider that that claim the sexual orientation claim in the claims related to his experiences as a gay man and all salvadoran mistreatment endured but again turning to the fact that i do think that we do looking at the money they were threatening sexual violence for what purpose to gain money and that's i think referencing gonzalez because that's similar they were using their violence and death threats in order to enrich themselves which is the biggest motivation here which in itself would not be a basis for did you reserve time counsel did you reserve time