is not eligible to get a work permit and the seriousness of the harks effect or the whole the whole in the heart of the child which of the child was good but that is not necessarily mean that the future health of the child or the weight of the hole in the heart is not to be considered more review sort of discretionary determinations about whether there are exceptional or unusual hardships of well why or why is this a question that we should review because it's not a question of the discretion part as  is a number of family who lives in he has a family and in mexico who have has relatives in the united states and  the gang members in mexico were aware of his presence in the united states and that there is a distinction for for that family as opposed to other family members because of the connection of the u s found or the family member in the united states so so there's a there's a  is that issue presented in this case or not because the immigration judge said your client hadn't shown that he was going to be harmed because of his family  ties and if that's true you know that we would have to reach the question of whether the family can be a social group but i'd like to know you did you think that that is a finding the borderline on a basis on which we could uphold the court's decision or do you think the boredom rely on the i think the the board did rely on that  group this gang knew of his presence in the united states and therefore they were attacking his family and if you were to come back into the united into mexico most likely they would also attack him because us well yes to that question is one because well i mean that's what that is what we are fighting against and is nothing we yeah we as you noted that this case where the board well let me let me go back up we read this decision as purely a nexus case because the board  says the record supports the immigrations the karen nation that the respondent failed to establish that he will be persecuted on account of a particular social group defined by his familial ties to his sister and father there is also a footnote at the grounds in addition when discussing the familial ties in the board's decision it refers to page a weapon of the in court i'm sorry eleven page ten and eleven of the immigration judges decision with just thirty five and thirty six of the record and that was pages deal with the next as the next is finding that he the immigration judge did find based this would not be the case to reach that issue on because that determinative factor into dispositive finding as to asylum and withholding other moolah other than the fact that he's a sound application is time barred is that there is no nex between the harm and particulars arms area of particular social group political opinion or his other claimed p s g which is mexicans returning back to the united states after a lengthy stay in the united states determination that the petitioner failed to establish he will be persecuted on a count of a particular social group defined by his family ties to his sister and his father so the way i read that is they're saying facts that would be needed to appropriately apply in most cases is that it was over you're saying i'm saying if the court had it the board just had that sentence without the previous senten probably would have remained in this case because you can't just say l e a for close a social group because ellie a basically said no when you argue social group you still have to go through the criteria of particular there is no there should not be a blanket application that says l e a nose in the family can never be a social group that would be an error of law but because we believe that the board in a way saved itself by the previous particularly focused on the nexus requirement and then they have the added footnote at the bottom which says the reason we're denying his application is because we fail to establish persecution for lack of establishing an access  what's before i understand the concerns but i think ultimately the cause what it's kind of a discernable path here i think the board was really just trying to say that he failed to establish persecution based on any of the grounds that he raised whether it's family political opinion or are opting out mexican deportee i mean really this case boils down to is that this gentleman is family he comes from an area where there's lots of extortion his sister was extorted and her household in two thousand and thirteen her father suffered the same crime three years later but there's really no evidence that any of these criminals were either linked to that they were the same criminals that they belong to the same group that they even care that these particular individuals who are related they just wanted to get money and the fact that they may have threatened somebody in the course of doing that was more of a means to an end just we want your money if we have to threaten you to your daughter or mention the fact that your son is in the united states and probably can send you money those are just tactics in order to get the money and that's really what randomly attacking everyone it is more probable than not that that they would focus on people with relatives in the united states therefore there would have it his family or the are the people that are readily available to attack you know that he has to be in danger not them but he was