mexican drug cartel threatened him at gunpoint threatened his children or raped a wife kidnapped him forcing the witness to execution style beheadings and placed a metal cable around his neck and tight choose for where we've seen a request for asylum denied but c t granted and we get a petition for review what are the practical stakes for mr wanna win his family in the difference the really and may i ask what is is it to catalinas his wife's name yes what is what's her immigration status of this not she in removal proceedings i don't represent her she's in california i heard from her counsel yesterday that her unclear about what they just trying to take him out already trying to the sake of taking him out are they crazy to get her to join up i don't know that it was a recruitment so i don't know that it was necessarily that they wanted her to be part of the cartel i think it was more that they wanted to assert their ownership and control over her whether because they found her attractive or probably because it was part of the the broader policy of this cartel to terrorize people used sexual violence when  the group of the family was essential reason for the persecution accordingly under the court's precedents and under the language of the statute but the immigration judge and the board's error when they concluded that substantial evidence  to her but it was really the personal interest in catalina that was driving this as opposed to the social group how do we differentiate between the two well i think it's interesting that you as a personal interest because that's exactly where i was going judge it could have whether or not there's a personal component to the violence the question is whether membership in the group here marriage to his wife was a central reason and because we know exactly what the persecutor sad we know that it being prosecuted here because her husband would if there were no children in her i don't think the behavior of the cartel would have changed an oddity about this case i don't know i think that a group of two could be a particular social group but certainly a group of four court i'm christina greer on behalf of the attorney general your honour's first of all a siren is a very narrow form of relief it is not available to all who have been harmed or all who've been targeted for crime it is only available to those who have or who have been or will be persecuted on account of a protected ground which is that the the protected ground and the on account of are the two things that distinguish asylum from and so while the court found the board or the government did not challenge that mr ruan a well qualified for tat relief the question here is whether your stablished up protected ground with established that his harm was on account of a particular social group of his family and i'll start with that first point your honour's first of all the substantial evidence standard does apply here in  question is was his family being targeted on account of it being a family that there was some sort of family quasi family that there is an animist against the stanley for some reason there's no evidence that's required it's not necessarily personal as opposed to his relationship with the social group the family but it was personal because of his wife what's the distinction how how are we supposed to interpret personal because of his relationship with this wife versus because they're targeting to social groups namely his family and months where that animists factor does come in because  the conclusion that this was not a personal vendetta situation is that the questions are whether or not there's enough where there's substantial evidence to support that it was an essential factor it would be ultimately whether substantial evidence does or doesn't have to be the only central fact correct it does not have to be only the only factor but it can't be incidental and so that's where our argument that anyone who would have gotten in the way of cattle you know going with beginnings so a bodyguard a friend a neighbor a runner how do we know that there's no evidence that they went after anybody else who got in the way rational trier of fact here on this record find that they were not being threatened they could how they could find that the threats to the boys weren't necessarily to threaten the boys but why it is but there is a difference between being put in the situation because of the family membership and the family membership being a motivating factor you just said that wasn't required though it's not required but because of the factual finding it's not a legal determination part of the question is all of these factors and what was the motivation what were the different motivations how are they put into tears those are all or how do we determine what's incidental how do we determine what effort to get everyone out that would be a different case than the children would be threatened and that would look more like w g a where the children are targeted purely because to get  we're even here in this case but  court did determine that he would be harmed in the future and so he did get some sort of protection but what did not establish that it was because of his family members or such that his family membership was a motivation as a family know working at pew just three forty four one in the briefing there was discussion about other family members being harmed such as brothers and the nothing in the record shows that beginning on three forty four on the record are the letters from other family members t be personal there are mixed motive cases almost all of these asylum cases are mixed motives sort of the fact that there's a personal component isn't really necessary or relevant to the question of whether the group that we defined was a reason for persecution in getting to that what the group that we defined it in every filing from the immigration court all the way up to the part to this court as the immediate family it's his wife it's his children we did include many affidavits some other family members which we put in the record for the immigration judge for two to show the credibility of his story we had numerous other family members who spoke about the neck the mark and after he got back from being kidnapped you also put in evidence that he was still being threatened their family money did that as well and finally it of course i plaza ramirez and there are the petitioner admitted that he had been singled out because the persecutor thought he was a member of a rival game there wasn't any direct evidence or circumstantial evidence in the form of