our th case for this morning is against attorney general bar be articulated particular social group of single females without a head of household forget about the other one maybe cognizable so sort of let's assume that's a group she's not presented evidence that she w targeted because of her membership in that particular group and the fact is she lives for years in guatemala after her husband has gone to the united states raising a family and i don't see any evidence in this record at least that she has any problem at all that bubbles up to the surface anyhow and we don't know anything  i see your point your honor the issue is that the immigration judge only focus on the well aspect of the i c got it all she she has a paragraph about well  but then she goes on the next paragraph saying not because they targeted her on account of a protected ground i mean it's hard for the immigration right very much about the absence of evidence and  then in the next paragraph she says there's no evidence that the risk faced by respondent is because of her opposition to the gangs or apartment here her lack of a male head of household so and the judge is looking for something to connect protected status to the negative actions i'll just call it generally because we also have an issue here even if all the rest of this happen and seventeen case where the petitioner challenge whether a group has a particular social group and didn't challenge whether the motive of the gang members was the perceived wealth or the petitioners in that case  that it wasn't in fact holding on nexis the agency holding on left and found the argument wait but waiver aside the court's reviewing the agency's decision for substantial evidence and as chief judge was already pointed she received money from the united states for well over a decade people in her village knew about this she had a nicer home her children wore nicer clothes she had nicer things in her home and these were the reason she was targeted that's the only reason the that's correct more than a decade she lives there with maybe young male members of the household correct so the husband left in two thousand and one and there was nothing so presumably the oldest child was still just a toddler at that age northern triangle and in this court has held that threat skin and established persecution it doesn't have to be a gun to that actual victim's head there can be some sort of peripheral evidence but there just wasn't any in this case there to combine that with like in l a where the fork were terrorizing this family demanding money and they actually kidnap somebody known to the family in combination with these extortion threats and and maybe there is some dialogue between the board of immigration appeals and this court and other courts of appeals on this question where we wind up reviewing pieces with a differential standard of review does this record compel a finding of persecution and we usually kind it's very strong language about what's needed what you quoted in the word them turns around and says that's the standard that we've reverse in the board didn't touch on it here but there are some protection you have to show that the police are unable or unwilling to control a lot of cases whether you can relocate and these aren't issues that the board addressed in this case but certainly if you can go to a family member or another village or a town to avoid death threats you know those are options that the you know people living in these countries certainly should take her st before making the dangerous trek to the united states but i mean even if  and again the record here does not compel anything other than these people wanted money they believe she had money and that's the only reason they targeted her and i down to about two minutes so if you want me to address the prayer issue it's coming up a lot of where we're certainly quite familiar with it so right and now you predicted right so as judge roller kind of laid the road map for what the decision would look like eventually last week you know the statutes silen certainly if somebody later notice it appears that several hearings they could certainly wave that we would argue that they would have which is why it may not be that the word jurisdiction in the strong sense to terminate the bad word