the next case on the counter is libor says bar but that's been submitted on them on the briefs and record store next case for argument is bernard gonzales versus bar her family membership when additional documentation was submitted to the b i a it was revealed through evidence that the petitioner family had been targeted by fark for a period of time spanning over thirty years the petitioners father was murdered for being opposition or opposing the fark being a member of an organization called the patriotic union her uncles were murdered as well her grandmother was murdered the period of time of extortion was when the petitioner's mother had a business and the extortion period occurred pretty much about one year so we're looking at about thirty years about one year and i would direct the court's attention to the record erred and finding that there was no prejudice by the in fact this is the council council should have presented documentation showing that there was an imputed political opinion argument here and a political opinion argument we've with  the family persecution thing in the record that suggests that your client vised prior counsel and the facts i do not believe there that information is in the record because i don't think the information was alyssa to from council she spent very little time having dialogue with council spoke to an assistant and was not advised as to what information had to be provided she testified for the for the immigration judge and was ask open ended questions and never mentioned and this information about political persecution of falun member she talked about extortion didn't she didn't know what the asylum laws are she had to rely on or her honor attorney an attorney indicated to the court that this was a family persecution case so she's following the lead over her attorney the information was not elicited from her from the corps or from her attorney open ended questions did not to go specific to the issue of political persecution because that wasn't even mentioned to the court neither in direct and there was no in there there was no  additional testimony or information provided by counsel for the petitioner the the after after they made the hearing that the petitioner went to new not make it to the court record and that is the problem here nor did the theory make it to the court record and that was the duty of the attorney to provide that to the court and yes questions were asked but not all the proper questions were asked and severe persecution murders of family members multiple family members death threats revealed to other family members who didn't want to pay that was one little period that the when the mother was had her business and this was just another indication of her opposition to the fark she didn't want to pay it was better nuff that they were so many family members her husband and and her mother didn't want to paint her well the record is indicate that they were subject to extortion they they were just opposing the father and the uncles and the grandmother opposed the fark and that was known by the fark a not an individual we're talking about it an organization a military organization guerilla group that does very large very sophisticated and in colombia so i think the problem is that it's not a case in which she was never ask why was your family persecuted she was asked that several times open to question why and her response was never because we politically oppose far career sponsor was we refused to   focusing on that how did the prior council commit error she never told them about this or how was she prejudiced by ineffective assistance if she was given several opportunities to bring that to the immigration judge's attention and she just didn't do it that's correct so how was she prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel because she was given multiple opportunities to answer opened up to questions before the immigration judge she just was not prepared she was she didn't understand that it was significant that this this organization had been persecuting her family for reasons other than money when preparing the case with her tourney the focus was on the extortion the attorney actually said this is an extortion case so she's following the lead over her counsel she doesn't know the rules in the laws let me ask you just how  when she left when when the mother left colombia how old was the petitioner well the petitioner was born in the in the mid eighty's so she left whether left colombia in two thousand and seven so we're talking about a what's what's your mother status her mother status is that she's in proceedings at this time and she's also fighting her case what doesn't it's not a church she's going to stay in the united states and her uncle is threatened and and murdered and her stepfather is threatened this is after the fact so this was within the period of  changed circumstances and in that wasn't even provided by counsel this is after multiple murders of family members and an attack on her personally so all of this persecution occurred well before she came to the  these new circumstances for cultures that make the decision to stay in the united states and there are significant the additional murder of another family member a family member that was threatened and  by not exhausting it with the board below starting starting with the one year asylum or judge a raised i would say that i agree that there hasn't been a showing of change circumstances with respect to what claim was the killing of the of the uncle pretty significant even well i mean it's a significant event in some of these family that that happened but but it did it the question for the court and immigration just below was whether that was a material circumstance that changed the nature of her asylum claim or change the reason why even a number of years that the other family members had been had been subject to persecution  you know terrible things by the fark so this this goes to a very important issue your honor which is what was the motivation of the fark was it to extort money as as the immigration judge and the board found or was was there anything having to do with the family or political opinion recently been both the mother had been involved in a community organization that apparently opposed the fark that's true but but there's no indication in the record that the fark knew that the daughter was the person of the smother who attended that or that they had with the four computed a political opinion to the daughter there's just no evidence in the record of that with respect to political opinion and that's why  so to get back just to the one year a solemn bar the immigration judge looked at this and says there's nothing materially different here no material differ materially different circumstances to allow this  exception to the one your solemn bar but regardless as the court is where the immigration judge still looked at whether or not the petitioner deserved asylum notwithstanding the fact that she was did not comply with the one year bar but as far as this court's decision the court could make a decision that you're correct she didn't she did not have a material exception to the one year bar in that set for asylum but if this court has the further step also and looks at th  still indicated that that the person deserved the petitioner deserved asylum as a result of these actions ever occurring but the question for this court is whether or not  i don't think it is one of the grounds and has to be tied to political opinion or something it has to be tied to one of the five an imitator ground under the ins they made that argument to  immigration judge the immigration judge looked at this and and then a great look at it under political pen looked at it under under social groups so that these things were just because it was presented as an extortion case if you want to say that on the chart i agree with that presumption but if you feel that way doesn't it say it was a presumption i just of that's the way it that's what it looks like it but the immigration judge nevertheless took a holistic view of the case and said i'm going to analyze this to see whether or not this persecution occurred because she was a member of particular social group or whether it occurred because she had a political opinion or input political opinion that was i reason the fork was interested in her was because she owned a store and they wanted money extortion demands quota rent that this is what the fark does and as this court clearly held institue know versus holder that this is not a ground for asylum when when that is the motive of the persecutor to go after money as opposed to any other reason then you cannot have an asylum claim based on that and that's what the board held in this case and that's supported by substantial evidence one of the things that the board points to and i think this is a two hundred and ninety five dollars of the record is when the mother admitted that other merchants in the same area other store owners other period of time correct i'm not sure you can tell from the i'm not i'm not sure that there's anything specifically in the record that indicates that they were from what we know about the fark they've been around for a long time whether or not they've been specific in that town and on the record establishes but but regardless what you're what you started out with judge is whether or not just because your mother attended a meeting against far that somehow that our petitioner here mr now gonzales has a political opinion that fark knew about and therefore persecut come up with a different strategy in pursuing an asylum claim doesn't mean that the st attorney strategy is ineffective assistance so so that is the failure of the of the ineffective assistance claim there's nothing to show that that prior tourney's conduct as and as attorney was so deficient that it affected the outcome of the proceedings and again you know it had nothing to do with the prior attorney because the immigration judge still considered you know that whether or not she was a member of a particular social group and whether or not that she has suffered persecution as a result of that  membership and the immigration judge also considered whether or not she had a political opinion or an imputed putin political opinion and these matters and the immigration she challenged determine that there is no nexus whatsoever to a protected ground  you that the the record itself does not compel a contrary conclusion that is are also a requirement that they have to show that the government was unable st the court found that she didn't meet the one year bar in any case there was no no nexus to a protected ground so we never had to get into that issue of unable or unwilling to control but here what reason may happen is that the board  determined again that there was no nexus to a protected ground and everything that that my opposing counsel is stating is there's nothing in the record to compel an opposite result to the contrary if you look at those pages  this war is and the judge also didn't ask me about the political activities of my father my mother and father was against the park and set up meetings of a group to unite people against right so  again this is a difference in strategy on just because her new counsel says hey i see an angle here on political opinion does it mean that her old attorney might might have already whether she asked or not french my thought you know if you present the case pretty much as a as an ext competent lawyer would do but there's nothing to show even if that were the case and we don't agree with that presumption that that there was another ground here that that should have been explored we don't agree with that because it actually no evidence in the record that political opinion was imputed to this individual but even if you say that even if you accept that fact there's nothing to show that she was prejudiced because there's nothing that would have affected the outcome of the case because both the immigration judge and the board looked at this issue with respect to the who political opinion and even with just briefly on the one central reason issue you know given the fact that the as i mentioned in footnote two on page thirty three of the brief there was some question about whether this should be read bad as a result of a part of me and their answer is no because the board never delved into the legal reasoning of withholding because it did not have to because under the long affected the mother but we have to look at the circumstantial evidence council ignores or the government ignores the circumstantial evidence we have a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing that that there was in puta political opinion circle at circles and jones is not lean toward simple criminal stabbing which she was tapped or politically motivated extortion but rather a systematic operation to to persecute a particular family for its opposition for utilizing murder stabbing explaining this they do so assume that the evidence is credible and but they don't go into detail they focus on the extortion and again this is not just merely an extortion case the extortion was just one of the methods of persecution many years against this family so this is a mix of family and political opinion or imputed political opinion persecution and should be seen that way and for that reason the petition should be granted in the matters at the very least should be rich re man did back to the immigration court for the court to do more fact finding and to make this determination the that did turney obviously didn't present these arguments of the