i think you're in the next case so if you  and the persecution or fear of persecution motive is the primary thing that's addressed i think the mistake comes in the analysis a lot of times because there's two types of motive there's the motive of what did the person hope to gain and there's the motive of why was the particular target chosen and i think the immigration judge in this case kind of skipped over the  gave primary emphasis to the person st part i quoted a case in my brief yes the th circuit case and it was a case where the  the petitioner the the immigrant had said that her uncle targeted her because her of her gender and he targeted her because of wanting to get sex from her and the th circuit this court ruled that he didn't target her because of her gender he argued or her because she was in a vulnerable position and he would have targeted anyone in a vulnerable position but the primary thing that's important about that analysis is the court didn't give over why she was targeted and just say oh he didn't target her because a family member ship or sex he he he just wanted sex and that's what's happening in this case and the d h s brief is the focus is on they want it to recruit kevin for again and that was the what they ultimately hoped to achieve but that's not the end of the analysis the question is why did they target his mother factual determination or i guess and you're not that is the the central focus or be exclusive focus if you're you know you're not challenging the legal framework under which the b i made is saying that they targeted her because of her control will over her son i think as i view that anyone could have that control over  son and therefore would have been subject to being targeted therefore they were not charged targeting her because she is his mother or mother or charge a charge targeting her because she is the person in position to exercise control so going to your st step in your if i understand those two points in your in your analysis well that st point that st step doesn't get you where you want to get because it has nothing to do with her protected group of family it has to do with the fact that she has control of it please respond to that and i think that that is the core of this and that was kind of the the issue addressed in hernandez the issue is that couldn't the b i know that we have to be under substantial evidence standard compelled to determine that the b i a was erroneous why couldn't the be a factually infer that there is a distinction to be made between exercising determine that that exact same distinction is meaningless and just a brief follow up well i mean couldn't you when the same thing applied to one to somebody who was his guardian or somebody who happened to be in some other situation of authority over them when the gang had done exactly the same thing you know i think i think you have to really break apart the definition of family and a way that it's not logical or reasonable in order to reach that and you know in the lopez case it makes sense it's not only a family member that might help the sister a scape a abusive relationship she could call a friend a neighbor anybody but the very nature of a minor child is that the person that's a control of their life is the mother that's or father or immediate family that's the definition of family are there are exceptions to that rule yes you know in l e a romanov family was you know kind of defined as that consensual definition of family but there were some other people that were included in that assassination because they were kind of aligned up with them physically and intertwined with that family but it didn't break apart the fact that this with this family even though some other people were caught in to that web there are exceptions to that rule the commitment foster parent let me look at from the other point of view  the fact that the mother is family is not the issue is what judge holmes has been pursuing because it's someone who has control right now let's look at what happened to other members of the family who didn't have control if there doesn't seem to be any animist against family if the social group or mothers then you by have you'd have a better argument i think but i've got a concern that there  no threat against the sister and that's suggests that there's no animus against family it's not like you did this there's a case in the th circuit i think it was the fact that how is your theory consistent with nothing being done or even threaten to the other member of the nuclear family there's a couple of things that i j mentioned immigration judge also use the word an hate everyone who belongs to a particular racial group you're not retaliating against them but i would think that's what it means to want to persecute someone because they belong to a group that would meet the word i would use for that to describe that is animus toward that animist toward the family might be one reason where you want to kill all the members of the family for some particular reason but when there is another reason like for instance there's it's not even in doubt that the reason here was because they wanted to recruit kevin into the game that was the reason they targeted the mother but when it's that reason then it's going to manifest a little bit differently and the control is actually the issue  the other thing is this whole case from beginning to end the the events lasted one month and jennifer answered the phone one time she's twenty five she is married she lives apart from the mother but the immediate family not just mother but as a definition nuclear family that was the definition of her now does avalos case nuclear family they did it parse it down to say well it was just the mother in fact the mother was the one targeted but as a societal rule the nuclear family is the one that's the cradle of protection and control for the minor children the sister  all i think i think so i think yes it it can and would this only manifested for a month or so there was only three events they're not going to go seek revenge on the sister because it just wasn't a revenge case this was woman the mother was not that she was a relative not that she was a really close relative but that she had control and so if she were a feeble woman who had no influence over the child would you say she would have been she would have been targeted because she didn't have control then that that suggests that the reason she was targeted there's the case i guess it was only a stew one thousand seven hundred case where they were targeting the family because they owned a store and they wanted to get that store and the court made an important distinction just like in the if they moved out so that another family was there that target that family this this isn't something that can be separated out yes it's control but it's controlled because of the family relationship and that it's because of the m relationship well if your group your social group is a mother right i understand i understand what you're saying and i understand what the opposing counsel said about that but i do believe the nuclear family itself is the is the cradle of control for my adult minor children the fact that if the sister would have answered the phone and and interacted with these people they likely would have put the threats toward her to a maid no visitor no but the nuclear family and i mean let's say your argument is pretty good when we're reviewing fact finding the i j a affirmed by the b why why is your argument so compelling that we have to reverse when the fact finders didn't see it as relating to the comes from that at its core and it's so intertwined with that for minor children that it's as simple as saying the sky is blue because that's the way it is if you didn't agree with that then you wouldn't you wouldn't you wouldn't feel that way or you wouldn't come to that conclusion oh what a boils down to or does it boil down to how many central reasons for the prosecution or for the persecution on account you don't have the classic case classic case would be there after this family because they have gone to the government and they're leading a protest against drug dealers or something and so they're going to tell everybody that that's an easy right but say there are multiple reasons central reasons and if you have one of then you're going to prevail and this looks like one is that your argument no it's it's basically the argument it's kind of like the romanov family they their goal was to install this new government that was their goal and you know even by the way the when the romanov family was assassinated during that revolution six million russians died so even the general lawlessness but the bottom line is they targeted that family to achieve that goal and i don't think i mean there is huge numbers of cases where people are targeted it because they're going to accomplish a secondary or a primary economic goal political goal and that person is just fodder for that goal and this i think is the same way but in lopez in  the mother or whether the son would sell drugs from again and i could very easily envision a situation in which the mother would affirmatively support her son selling drugs for the gang because she would get a cut you know in that situation she would be a human being a tax she wouldn't be subject to persecution so if she's not subject to persecution in that situation then it turns out what she does not who she know in this situation they went after her because she didn't do she would not exercise her control you know manner that was sounds read to them that that's correct but they say they she was in that position and they target her because she's the mother she they went to her in the st place because she was the mother and so gee you can finish that thought and time's up and go ahead if just the fact is there's there's some conduct involved on her part yes again there's exceptions to the rule about guardian and there's exceptions to the rule about mothers who want their sons involved in criminal activity but the general rule of nuclear families that we in this country in every country is the mother and the nuclear family is there to protect the minor children what i just heard from petitioners counsels that this is a maternal based case but that's not exactly the case that was in it to the board what was presented to the board was a particular social group comprised of the sun's immediate family and as petitioners counsel notes motive is key in this case and the gangs motives here involve recruitment to further their financial interest in illicit drug trafficking and the record does not compel the conclusion that the gang held a particular toward d petitioner kevin recite his or immediate family in the asylum context where as here private actors are motivated by crime or money or both there is a lack of nexus the threats occurred because the game was focused on recruitment to line its own pockets not because the league petitioner was a member of our son's immediate family in fact a particular social group comprised of all three people where the alleged persecutors are motivated by financial gain or further excuse me furthering their illicit objectives the record does not compel the conclusion that the applicant was persecuted because they were members of a family i want to be clear here there are some suggestion in your brief that there may be some reason we don't have jurisdiction over this case you're not really telling us that just because they didn't cite hernandez of olives to the board that we don't have jurisdiction over this case or over the entire petition are you  no i'm not saying that your honor i what i think i'm saying is is that everything you just heard was not presented to the board and it u s c section two hundred and fifty two to one says that before claims can be presented to the court of appeal they should have least be shown to the board of immigration appeals before this quarter or something you throw out the case because they didn't cite hernandez alba lows what i'm saying is they didn't give the board an opportunity to hear their legal theories so they hear  question based case and in her notice of appeal she i don't think there's anything anybody would be surprised i certainly wouldn't surprise when i read her notice of appeal about what this case is about and the board would have leave the board in the dark concerning what her factual allegation is and that's key they have their fun her final action factual allegation and certainly the board right wrote a to your point the board didn't say we don't know what you're saying they wrote a full blown decision my point is it's hard to accept that the board should be reversed because there's a th circuit decision up there that was never presented to the board of immigration appeals i'm sure the board would have liked of talked about hernandez avallone never got that opportunity to do so so it's hard to hear a person come before this court and say well if you were if we were in the th circuit we would carry the day with a day to be in the for that opportunity or to let that's we should reach the same result here i think these cases are individual cases and we take them one by one and i think as we pointed out in our brief there's a nother case in the th circuit country as my head of that comes out a different way so we you would the salient distinction or distinctions that you would draw from kids but it's not just i would say i believe your honor is that the teacher tells us why the gang is recruiting individuals they're recruiting individuals at the school there's no particular animas toward this this family there's nothing unique about this family they want the kids to sell drugs there at the school and the teacher tells us that he does page one hundred and twenty six dollars of the record the teacher tells the mother the gangs are recruiting kids at the schools and so i think that's the distinguishing factor here this is not as if this thing started depositions house to be sure they'll time they got to petitioners house but it didn't start a petition as house that in pick up just her son on the street randomly somewhere they were the local the focal point was the school and the gang was that it the teacher tells us the gang was at the school to recruit kids to sell drones the games purpose here was to recruit the kids for their own illicit gain and they had no particular animas toward this this particular family as the court was no didn't let me let me suggest something else maybe i didn't read for certain opinion correctly but they're very complaint seemed to be that the i didn't really explain itself and after that decision was the ellie a decision is a deli a yes yes which goes into great detail about how they deal with this in the family situation and it gives that it gives guidance that wasn't there before doesn't doesn't mean that they didn't outright reverse i don't think they could for circuit they sen am i misreading the case no i think you've read that hernandez i was correctly i think that the language that the th circuit use is that the board undertook an excessively narrow examination concerning the role of the maternal relationship and as i pointed out earlier the maternal relationship was not put forward as it was here today what the board had was a particular social group defined as immediate family petitioners minor son not the maternal relationship that the mother had with the son and as one of the judges pointed out but daughter wasn't impacted at all by the gangs here so we don't have an excessively narrow reading to get to the point on hernandez that was don't have an excessively narrow the agency decision is manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of discretion and what precedes that is the court's conclusion that the maternal relationship to the sun as at least one central reads and what that phrase is with me as well how many central reasons kenya and at least the th circuit appears to say you can have multiple ones and that this will just central reason the maternal relationship is enough all by itself and if that's the case we have the same maternal relationship basically the same fact so why why would the th circuit not control if we were on the th circuit and i guess a different way of saying not is are you arguing that the th circuit is wrong are you arguing that it's distinguishable from statements with respect to their are many central reasons is the law of this court i think it's hard to say that there are multiple central reasons essential reason is essential reason and this court's law with respect to that is the  about the four circuits i think it's hard to say that there are so multiple central reasons and that's not the sports law of the sports as there are central reasons and then there are ten tangible and incidental reasons and the fact that the petitioner's mother was threatened by the gangs is not essential reason one of the gang was after the family the gang was after filling its coffers and expands banding its ranks to sell drugs as was pointed out earlier by one of the judges anyone who held sway with respect to the child yet the school be it the family be it if the son worked at some shop somewhere or a shopkeeper anyone who has held sway over this child would have been in the gangs way the fillets conference and expand its writings and on this standard i just like to say that when it comes to the central reason i think in lopez the question was asked and it matter of why would they have selected her if it was not for her membership in the social group and i think that's