the i j a fail to consider mr lopez once he has claimed protected grounds and in doing so did not consider exhibit knowing that of record which was his pre hearing memorandum which detailed two bases to protect the grounds the st being that you know those three things you have to supply to it what your particular area social distinction requirements and i don't see how they meet those requirements of any of it the very broad sense of what of course we consider them amor on he he moved he walked away twice the st time to move to cali for two and a half years and returned to his home town be relocated what he relocated that that is probably the biggest problem i nice case book why can't he just relocate now somewhere within colombia he's done it before and he had no difficulty apparently in allowing his family to remain in a relocated place although i think they've return cousin has disappeared some the record shows that that he was kidnapped and mr lopez fanta testified that he was kidnapped because mark had wanted to get more information about him about his whereabouts it is there any evidence that he was menaced in any way by this person he recognized your honor he he went he fled away from this person he was nothing in the record we have i would assume they had he continued to pay for it i'm not suggesting he should have continued to give in to the situation see ahead he continues do that we would be here or maybe he would be either his refusal to pay them is is more than just the monetary refusal to give the money it stood for challenging their refinery and mr bush has gone to put forward in that preparing memorandum that  left wing leaning he was refusing to pay because he didn't think they should be sticking their heads in his pocket why is that a political thing whether it's the difference between the fact that he did not actually have a political to comply with their you demand of their politics you said if you used disagreed with their tactics you didn't say disagreed with their policies programs they have or graham and that's exactly my point he disagreed with language and our abilities to use it certainly permit a massaging of the word politics and political into just about anything we want but if i may i'd like to ask that in addition to or perhaps as part of the relocation question i asked isn't this situation a one million rated for mr lopez valencia by virtue of the fact the well recognize fact that the government of colombia and fork came to an agreement years back that would stand down and hasn't that been the case what is the threat to mr lopez valencia going forward your honor the threat to mr fund to continue to be fark and he presented evidence in the immigration judges proceedings indicating that and with other not just the testimony but with other documentary support that continue to be armed and continue to be a threat even even after the peace accord has reached with the government so that threat is still is still real and there is evidence on the record indicating that there any additional questions in is dennis before we have her back on r this matter was sent back for to consider additional information and it looks like what they be i a get was reissue it prior opinion with a footnote from the prior opinion that but no three that obviously should not have been in the nd opinion at all what are we to make of it looks like almost as if they're saying you know what the heck with you guys that we have a decision we're going to reissue it and by mistake that somebody left in a footnote from the prior decision that was sent back to them that doesn't look good for the process prospective your honor i think we should take that footnote in the recent decision and read it in conjunction with the reissue notice that the locate i mean ok if they couldn't locate it what were they supposed to do then or we continue to be a label located or we've got issue information as to what was reportedly said nothing right i'm like i said i think it just has to be read in conjunction with the text of the recent decision that's a reference i page to where they say the documents identified as missing were located in the record before the board and it's lot of way to run a railroad yes your honor i want to direct the court's attention to at least the car yes because this goes to some of the questions that you were raising judgment he about motive and about whether or not the tactics of fark could be some form of political imputed motive and in that case it was about to relive recruitment in the supreme court said no no no yes the guerrillas were trying to recruit the cardless but that doesn't mean that they guerrillas are political but that doesn't mean that they're recruiting him because of their politics they were true to him because you know they wanted workers and the same is true here petitioner wasn't being extorted because he resist fark everyone was being extorted he that's what he testified to that all of the businesses in the neighborhood were being extorted there was no indication that all those businesses were being extorted because they had some other opposition to farquhar relation to fark or for anything other than a peculiar motive and that was the same thing when he was asked point blank why did cora why did this guy throw the grenade at you and he said because i stopped paying the extortion that's not a political motive it's not impute of political political  it doesn't form the basis of any potential particular social group and for that reason there was no nexus to a particular notice to a protected ground which means petitioner couldn't qualify for asylum or for withholding and the immigration judge made all of these findings i understand there was the difficulty because he didn't have memorandum none of this missing memorandum which describes the two particular social groups but we can get over that because we know the motive that the immigration judge was very focused and said look we we don't just you're testified to specifically asked what they were after and in both circumstances what were the members who came to your business after the answer was they wanted the money the same they went why did because i would throw the explosive at you he said it's because i stopped pay that is substantial evidence in support of the immigration judges finding that the members were not motivated on account of a project around now turning to relocation relocation was an important petitioner in their opening brief waived contesting that finding it is it's been dispositive finding of the board and so even if there was some problem with the nexus finding that finding alone the relocation finding would be sufficient to  reject this petition for review you your honor to start with the point that was just discussed the relocate the aspect of relocation the finding of group of patients it's unfortunate that the immigration judgment siddur the ability of relocation as one of several factors in considering  based on the fact that he was being extorted it was that he was resisting their authority by refusing to comply with their demands which which i think is an important distinction he then fled after and abandoned business explore the financial vehicle and they still continued to pursue him and tried to find out where he was and try to chase them down after he had moved to a city several hours just one other point but the government regarding the reissued opinion it's not it's not merely that the state it's not true that the statement with the reissued opinion just supersede because the contemporaneous statement in the opinion was that they were unable to find it and so if the board was on the ball to find that memorandum that exhibit not they cannot consider it what the board said later in must have considered it but that is contrary to the footnote which was written at the time that they actually considered the case so the evidence of the board not consider this document but perhaps just an honest mistake they thought they might have because they later found it a year later after however many cases later but it's clear from the actual record that they did not  business and ultimately kicking him down the streets of another city are all factors that drive towards drive towards the fact that the immigration judge in the board should consider his protected his protected grounds and his claims  advocacy thank you