evidence that's a standard to reverse you know for this quarter of verse findings you must find that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion but compels it and so there's three main areas here you know where the that our client failed to meet her burden of proof and so she has a she has a burden of persuasion in this case she and she has to show that she has a well founded fear of returning to her her native country honduras and her father and brother were kidnapped and then shortly thereafter they there is a call and they they called the mother and all the family live together and they said you know we want to ransom there was never any you know anything done on the on that and that ransom but the father and brother were never heard from again and i think one of the important as well is that the people who kidnapped her father and brother were the d c i g and the c i g is a arm of the hunter and police and and one of the things that the judge did was he kept trying to push it into a gang related you know he's assumed that it was a gang related crime you know obviously gangs are rampant in honduras however that's never where attempts to kidnapped little bella her cousin while they're traveling the road so they're they're targeted again they skate narrowly they go to the police they the police are hesitant to take any investigation whatsoever that police report is actually in the record as well which i think is important so there's she substantiate her claims and it took a long time for the police to even take a report they did nothing about it and then when they continued to try to to find out where the father or brother were one of the people that was helping them was kidnapped as well while he was at at her father's old property shop so that the family lives in constant fear they are or  was that there was insufficient level harm and they they focus a lot on whether she was physically harmed in honduras and and one of the things you can have in an asylum claim is a threat and you know one of the things that the government  is you know an unfulfilled threat is insufficient but there's a there's a case in a way that i cite my brief out of the th circuit and in that case it deals with basically a threat going through someone who was kidnapped themselves to t ultimate person where they found that to be a credible threat sufficient to show persecution and this case she knows that her father and brother have been kidnapped and now they're threatening her with the same thing which is ultimately a death threat and flees she flees the country so i think it was an error for the court for the b i a the immigration judge to find that that there was a not not at least past persecution based you know as far as a credible threat  leadville given the fact that her father and brother were work kidnapped and ultimately obviously killed another thing that the immigration judge and be a found was that the persecutors were not just state actors and that was just an assumption that that these people who kidnapped her father were not with the one hundred employees but that really wasn't based on the record as a whole i mean they  to have a cut to ground so you know it has to be you're being persecuted based upon you know many different things that put opinion but also membership in a particular social group in this case she is saying that it's because she's part of the me how ramos family and  so every circuit has found that a nuclear family is a sufficient basis for the finding of a particular social group for purposes of persecution but what's the evidence here that they targeted here because of her membership in the family as opposed to well some factors that would apply so who i think with the judge me five independent family standing right i understand so so one of the things i think this kind of frustrating runners are they just they assume you're wealthy and therefore just because you're wealthy we're not going to find that's a particular social group but there's a case of the st circuit donna ramos versus holder and that's the case i cited in the brief as well but they talk about the fact that you know this family is you know wealthier of their you know middle class and that's part of their it's an immutable immutable distinction of their of that family so that on of the one of the reasons why that's one of the interests of the families not just purely because they're wealthy and wealth is mutable but it may be a characteristic of the family and what you mean by mutable i mean so basically the family is known in the community for having money you know o er having for being you know at least middle class and so that is one dollar of the characters of the family but the family continues to be targeted over and over again even even it even as their their holdings do for instance  what i'm saying is that it's not just purely based on wealth that may be a factor of why they are being targeted but that is not the sole factor it's this factor that they continue to persecute them but by their identity you know it's and so what i'm saying is that i think it's kind of a it's it's just easy to kind of write offs and that's just it's just purely wealth but you know i know that scenery you could almost never than find for a for a finding that a that miss me here ramos suffered in the past didn't rise to the level of persecution under the immigration nationality act that finding is coupled with the finding that she also didn't show and objective fear of return if she were to return to honduras through sufficient evidence that the fact she was being targeted because of her relationship to the me here ramos family the issues surrounding things like immutability or whether a family group can constitute a particular social group were not actually at issue in this case it's purely a nexus finding the supreme court and us in one thousand nine hundred to explain what that nexus finding is and the court was articulating that the immigration and nationality act makes motive critical in asylum cases and that the petitioner who's seeking the applicant who's seeking asylum needs to provide some evidence whether director circumstantial of that motive that is where miss me him he failed here it is true that she was related to people who were also kidnapped her father and her brother but what is missing from the evidentiary record here at least according to the agency is some indication that the people who called her the person who called her on her cell phone five years after her family had been kidnapped cared to persecute her because of her status as a member in the mahela ramos family as opposed to to kidnap her for ransom which is what happened to her father and brother if she were to targeted because they want money from her that is not a protected ground under the immigration and nationality act and that is what the agency found was that this was driven by well the speculating when it found that it found that based on this me he has ramos his own testimony where she explained the circumstances regarding the two thousand and eight kidnapping where the callers call back to the house they asked for the mother they demanded a ransom they gave a particular amount of money that they wanted unfortunately nothing came of that in terms of being able to pay the ransom and get the family members back the people who kidnapped the father and brother in two thousand and eight just simply never contacted the family again that we can tell the two thousand and thirteen phone call we don't know if it was connected to that original two thousand and eight kidnapping it very well could have been it could have been the same people could be a copycat could be just other criminals who were seeking to continue to target the family because of wealth we don't really know because miss me he has ramos didn't testify about that incident in any more detail than to say that she received a phone call on her cell phone  that the persecutor that would be persecutor on the phone said the same thing that happened to your dad and your brother is going to happen to you full stop so we're looking at what the motivation of why that phone call took place we just simply don't know we know that they are referencing the family that there had been a kidnapping in the past but we don't know what they want or why they're calling her because actually in that incident they didn't illicit money the threat was just the same thing that's going to happen to them at the same thing that happened to them going to happen to you that it wasn't a traditional threat you know if you don't do this we will do this so we simply just have an evidentiary gap where we don't know why that phone call took place we don't know what the people want or what what animated their desire to call her particularly five years i mentioned at the outset however that is just one way to deny the petition for review in this case the other way is to go to affirm the agency's finding that what happened to her in the past meaning that phone call didn't sufficiently rise to the level constitute past persecution under the immigration nationality act and that finding is also supported by substantial evidence this court has multiple presidential decisions discussing what happens when unfulfilled threats are directed at people in their home countries i think the study adi decision cited in respondents brief is particularly informative on this point in that case it was a catholic gentleman who lived in indonesia which is predominantly muslim in that case he married a muslim woman and the woman's brother threatened petitioner because of the interfaith marriage and the brother had his own sister there was physical violence against the sister it the threatened the petitioner and said i'm going to kill you because you've murdered my sister so there was violence that predated the threat then the threat happened even in that instance where there were some indication that the person the perpetrator would be willing to  submit it's it's the same situation here what's really going on in this case is crime her brother her father unfortunately suffered a kidnapping for ransom terrible situation but at the end of the day that's a crime it's i mean i think that's got to be unequivocal her brother and father are kidnapped her cousin and her are going to kidnap them and then they come right back with the knowledge of what happened to her father and brother and threaten her and this and this the court said was the board said was that objectively they didn't find it to be to rise to that level but i think i think it's an error because i think anyone her in her circumstance you know after having happened what happened to her brother in father would do the same thing