removal could i ask you about the cat claim i was it sounded like your introduction you were going to focus on government acquiescence acquiescence but i wasn't sure that the yanks had actually denied their claim on and seventeen and how we should think about that in terms of the likelihood of poor you have it seems like she wasn't bothered during the time you're on our dime that time only testified in the record that she spent the majority of that time in hiding evidence shows this court's role is simply to say whether or not there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the agency's determination and i would point i would point this court to judge vandyke's concurrence in the recent case  the supreme court mandated that motive is critical even personal recognizes this motive is critical and that is what the agencies the termination really boils down to in this case which was essentially that this case boils down to the criminal motives of the game that the thinking was motivated not by some and i suggest a group of property owners but rather to get the property itself it wasn't motivated by her family as a group but again because if it's criminal shaheen it was motivated to obtain a property like in that tino beholder where this court said there was these are unfortunate and and certainly sympathetic facts the legal standard here requires that mister garcia show that the motivation of the game was that it had some  it had some awareness and and care of of her belonging to a protected ground having a protected characteristic it seems like those arguments might go better to the idea that land ownership or property ownership shouldn't be a cognizable social group but that isn't the ground it agency said it was resting on so i mean i can understand the argument that when someone who targeted for property is not really because of the group  a great example of that because there the question was why is this nexus question and it was it wasn't is our property owners a particular social group it was what is the motivation of the gang in action going after someone because they want their property how do we ever tell the difference for them that i'm going after the person because they own the property on your honor and just looking at this case  the st i would i would say that going back to this court standard of review i just have to point out that it's the board's deter it's the board's determination right so before looks at the contradictory evidence and makes that judgement call did the petitioner satisfy her burden and in that line drawing that is the line drawn just doesn't make sense i think it's impossible to draw a line then what the boards that makes no sense and maybe it could have said this is a good group but they didn't say that and instead they drew a line that i don't know that we have to it is just completely blind or thought through whether the line makes sense owners and that she wasn't it wasn't that she was a member of her family but rather than she had a piece of property that the gang wanted and ask your question on that issue because that be i a enterprise it was seeking people and it was seeking land it's motivation wasn't an animist against her family and it was an animate against a group of property owners and i think that's what the board and the agency has done here it's or vorst property ownership a group of property owners from the property itself that's what the court didn't you know the holder divorce the fact that the family owned property and were property owners from the fact that the gang one of the property itself because of the gains motivation for considered and what your honor is suggesting it sounds to me as that bought for having a son and a husband or but for owning this property the gang would not have would not have targeted  her but that's not what was shown in this case and further of a bought for her the strictly for caste is not the law of this circuit i'm only aware of one circuit in which that might be the law and that's the th circuit but this court has regression problem which me which essentially stripped of the motive requirement leads to the same kind of infinite regression recognized in court law as for example the in order to get a particular piece of property that she holds and why was that not be considered to be conduct that is got a nexus to the seeking property from her family this shows that the motivation for the cartels persecution was only shoots family and her family's property demonstrating once and then for her st infusion even if the government is correct that the cartels motivation was in part from the a criminal motivation or a reason in the large it's criminal properties family member said and family property ownership are good school can i ask mister nelson a question sure are you a student at the university of georgia i am a student at the university of georgia well that may be the best student argument we've ever heard thank you ma thank you be optimistic and hope for better argument times better football times yeah thanks like this case shall be submitted and the