the board of immigration appeals affirmed most of those rulings we asked this court to reverse st the b i a ignored copious evidence documenting el salvador's inability to control them or eighteen addressing only easily held that single mothers in el salvador was too overbroad to be a particular social group because councils brief did not include the magic words with minor children lastly even under substantial evidence review to be i am prone easily fail to recognize they missed on chaz family her status as a single mother in el salvador and her expression of a political opinion where at least three simple reasons to them are eighteen threatened her and her daughter with their lives of their it's not clearly erroneous for the immigration judge to determine that they wanted money that was their driving force their motivation it was a criminal enterprise was it is true that they chose to extort her and asked her for money but that does not mean that there were not other reasons that they chose out her a found that the reason they did it was because they  single mother were not central reasons there was a funding effect with respect to all three of those points is that not true it is true that the b i a held that family was not one of the reasons however it did not address the nexus question with regard to single mothers finding that that was not a particular so great one would you care if your primary central motivation is money whether it's a single mother single father a married couple or somebody who's a domestic status is on the phone because if what they're after is somebody who is vulnerable somebody who will give in to them then  then the social category would be vulnerable right and so they're looking for what types of groups meet the meet the vulnerable requirements of that we're going to be able to exert your architectural or social group of vulnerable people i don't think so your honor that's not the kind of thing that this court has recognized but we think single mothers we have it recognize single mothers either no never never had the opportunity to explicitly rather not a social group unless we've recognized them you lose no it's a it's a matter of whether particular so whether a particular group constitutes the statutory definition of particular social group that question is why that this court reviews de novo from the b i a and so the way that this court has set forth the requirements is that there are three requirements it must be fundamental or immutable characteristic must be particular have clear boundaries and it must now socially visible let me ask you this i forgot about im fundamental your honor it goes to what their identity is and while some people go on to get married after they are single it's not something that we would expect them or require them to change an order to avoid persecution characteristic has to be one that we don't require them to change i believe that that's the way that this court has described that particular requirement of the fundamental means it is core to their identity and it would be unfair to require them to change that just to escape the persecution involved and the way that those three requirements have been set forth by this test it sounds much like a demographic subset of society is what those three times are getting at and  targeted in part because she was a single mother st is that when they came to her they said we will kill your daughter if you do not comply that covers the mother but not necessarily the single well and we think that the evidence shows and mrs kennedy testified that because she did not have protection from a male that made her more likely that that would be somebody that they would go after and that they would look for and that she's going to be somebody who complies with their demands but i do want to point out again that the b i a did not explicitly address whether single mothers was one of the nexus and so if you  when the b i issues and in opinion if there is something that says and we adopt the remainder of the ideas findings or something like that that would count as a time when we go back and look at the i j a but otherwise we are limited to explicitly what a chose to hold and we don't go back and look at the i j s holdings and so single mothers would be the simplest way for this court to go because that is a matter of law and you don't have to have targeted her because of that i mean the threat to the dog is just like you know that it could have been a threat to the son just well you know she could be married that the vulnerable but this gang targeted both men and women that's clear in the record is at at times yes and those those men that it talks about in the record were her family members and so of course we show we we think that that supports the nexus of family being one of the reasons that they sought her out because all of this happened after her sister was general testimony that th it is true that the evidence shows by ms kennedy's testimony that they often go after market vendors to ask for money and those are eighty percent women so even if there were no finding a low or even if we do not know fren easier for the game to go after that those in the markets are primarily women that single mothers are targeted targeted particularly and that school children are especially vulnerable because they are away from their parents and easy for the gangs to manipulate but you're saying that she tart they targeted her male relatives that undercut your argument she was without male protections are not right they knew she had a male relative so they target them where does your vulnerability argument go they are the fact the woman is single means she's totally without protection well because that's what they decided as a reason why they sought her out here whether or not it was true or whether or not she was completely without male protection is beside the point as long as that's why they sought her out as somebody that they could extort and we think that the extortion itself is all part of the persecution that it's not limited simply to her refusal to pay or her or them wanting money if we just say that they wanted money that that explains why extortion is what they chose but it doesn't explain why he says stuart lots of people and they extort a woman who happens to out there at the market by ourself that happens to have a husband under your argument she's not going to be considered to be persecuted they extort money from a man he's by himself and a small bill under your theory it's not persecution it's only persecution when they happen to extort money from a woman who happens to not be married your honor to judge i see that my time has expired may answer that question no your honor that is not our position that there's certainly in any given case there could be a different protected category that somebody who's not vulnerable to this kind of extortion but we don't think that vulnerability is what makes them tart that's not what defines the particular social group what defines it here is things that are  they were targeted because they were vulnerable i would like for you to explain to me somebody who is targeted and armed policemen or members of the army who is not full somebody who's not vulnerable whether they're anybody who is a family member of somebody who has resisted the gangs is potentially protected under family membership and access and if their family member didn't resist the game by definition that would have and your honor i would say that the difference between attacking somebody what might make somebody vulnerable to attack and what might make somebody vulnerable to extortion is very different because with extortion it's we're going to be able to control your activity we're going to be able to force you to act over time in a certain way compliant with our demands and so that's a much much smaller group of people who may be vulnerable to that versus somebody who's just vulnerable to being attacked off guard and the people who are particularly vulnerable extortion or the market vendors i wouldn't say that they're particularly vulnerable i would say that those are who have money and who the gangs often ask for money and that they are again eighty percent of the time women and that might have something to do with the reason why it was it turns out is there any is there any indication that they attacked the market vendors they attack are disproportionately women compared to the percentage  of people who are market vendors who are women in other words eighty percent of the market than women i believe yes is there any indication that robber rob banks he said because that's where the money is in that the situation we've got here that's where the money years they can they can extort and require dollars ten dollars whatever a week because they know the market vendors will be bringing in that money and what they're also really after here is not so much money as exertion of power and control and so they're looking for what people they are able to control and show that message to the rest of society that does no good to control the popper you have to control somebody with the source of money or you get no money and there's no indication they were stored in people who didn't have  well i mean isa mark testified herself that she did not have enough money to make the payments to them right but she had money to make some payments so they were storing money from someone who had money to pay them initially yes and then it didn't it doesn't matter to them ultimately whether she says she does still have the money or she no longer has made any more money and so the money there is seems to indicate that the money there is is not the driving force ok virginia for the united states your honors i think you've hit the nail on the head this is a case purely about extortion and as this court and most courts recognize extortion is not a statutorily protected females anyone they can i think in this case petitioner seems to feel that particular social group is a catch off and she's trying to fit in one of these three categories she tries three of them number one she tries st claims there she was targeted because her sister st refused to pay the extortion money and so they apparently killed her her sister's husband and from then on r that's that's a whole a big crux of the case here are all of her claims are based on her testimony alone she has an expert that  she you know also has has put forth the tete the testimony of her expert claims she has no knowledge of the petitioner herself she bases her whole expert testimony on reading affidavits of the petition r particular did testify that she did know one of the gang members at one point and who was a childhood friend and the whole crux of this has to do with the immigration judge recognizing there was no supporting evidence she makes these incredible claims of you know being targeted being persecuted with these threats for not paying her twenty dollars every three days which which she initially did and also tries to tie that to her sister's refusing to pay that but there is nothing in the evidence to support that and your honor as the record reflects the immigration judge bent over backwards asked her repeatedly you know you claim you have all these relatives that have been persecuted or harmed where's the evidence she's in touch with her family therefore members plus your mother still living in el salvador she claim that if that testimony indicates she's still in touch with them she could have gotten affidavits something from them her own expert testified that yes there it is possible to get death certificates  her own attorney did not specifically ask although given the opportunity several times to establish whether there was a reason she didn't have death certificates for her brother in law or all these other people who were supposedly  protected ground and a particular social group is not a catch all for everybody to try to get immigration benefits you know this is this is not a happy case but ya know we have laws and you know until something is proven we can't we can't you know reward everybody i think you've recognized the record is devoid of anything showing that she was particularly targeted it's unfortunate her situation but but she has not met her burden of proof and unless the of the standard of review is substantial evidence unless you see something there that compels a contrary result you know you might even see something that maybe leans towards that way but it has to be compelling and that is not the case here  thank you your honor i want to st remind the court that we have also asserted that alternative grounds of relief under the convention against torture and withholding of removal and the convention against torture does not require you to find a nex to a particular social group or to a political opinion the only holding that the b i a made with regard to that claim was that the government she had not shown acquiescence of a public  honor and we would point out there that the standard is acquiescence of a single public official and so the acquiescence here the st facts used to establish that are what happened in her case that she went to the police and she saw them doing nothing she didn't see them she doesn't see them following up investigating asking her questions coming the next day any type of activity that would show and we think that their shows that they were torture have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent it and we think that's what was happening here when she reported this to the police and they in effect did nothing fact that they didn't catch the culprit is and your honor i think that case is distinguishable that they took more actions there to actually try to a little mole but not much and it makes sense that of course the necessarily fail period end of quote actually yeah actually i bet you haven't read that case but i bet it was a case where the problem here with cat so that case probably the something other than that it would not be the st time one of our opinions over stated but thank you council would take that under submission