and expressed that he was against their criminal activities and that he was not hers and this attack was so vicious that result in significant corollas just a left side of his face as well as other severe injuries and i gather he was given two choices to get the money lot of danger from that care and he's also got himself in some trouble here but what the appropriate method for ending this type of this it's sort of falls cases and on there is various case law that tries to make sense of it one argument that i would like to put forward today is an immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals we dock to the decision of immigration judge found that mr potus did feeling well that i must thirteen and that the record shows that mr t actually threatened entire family after one of these cousins was murdered causing the entire family to flee to mexico so that threat coupled with the murder of these cousins a prize to well and if your future persecution and critical point is that the immigration judge did not address this argument he misconstrued the argument and stated that mr potus did not demonstrate that one sentient reason for  targeted by almost thirteen he visited the country in two thousand and fifteen and they asked him to deliver a message to mr part is that they were looking for him and also the fact that his two cousins were  in your family ties do not appear to even attend church or reason for persecution and i think did look at that and although they didn't use the exact sort of terminology of these two different ways of thinking about it i totally agree with you there  he focused a lot of act at these numbers of the family were targeted for their relationship to mr parker has and this court has held that that necessarily does not have to be the case in order for an individual to have their own well founded fear future persecution so that's what i feel the focus was on rather than determining whether or not he has a lot of found if your future persecution know my time it's not my usual question well the regulations state that the focus is on a public official or it person acting in an official capacity if there is an official or a few officials who are acting in a manner that violence is more important than the effort that they put forward in that particular case there were a few officials involved in the acquiescence of torture of of the tensioner and and the court found that this they were gang they already targeted before he opened his mouth you know he makes an argument about his membership in a particular social group americanize not community members but we respectfully suggest that the agency got it right when they followed this doesn't really matter what's happening at the local level no your honor there isn't our position and i think the court's opinion and celebrity speaks to that exact issue it's possible for the south of our government as a whole to have one position and then for local authorities to  at the kind of well your honor i want to give you a straight answer your question but i'm hesitant to create a strict rule about certain type of evidence that you need to add or also don't have you lose i think you just need to have some evidence at least insulators through shows where that  but if the policing didn't well that certainly would be closer to helping much boxes are so that we would need to know why we have that we said we're not going to open an investigation because we don't want to get killed by almost thirteen and we