motivated by the petitions family member ship because such a finding would have been unnecessary to apply the one central reasons that in two thousand and seventeen the th circuit issued for us from arrow which clarified that the appropriate standard for nexus under conduct its legal analysis under the correct standard remand remand is required by the agency to the immigration judge to make the factual predicate findings to allow it to conduct its research and conduct the immigration judge did find that the that is were not are motivated by family members immigration does not make that finding but even if it did if the b a s still applied family social group that's involved here that strikes me as wrong because we've got a lot of cases where the dispute with a particular individual is about i'm not in protective ground but for example got a case out of south africa where the father of the patriarch in the family was a racist abuser and as a consequence of that his family members were being threatened and the and so on and we held that with respect to the family members not with respect to the racist patriarch but with respect to the family members this was because of a family relationship well yes there's a land dispute and there's a land dispute will edlund and his siblings but the threat is not to that we're worried about here is to the family members not with me so i thought i'm going to put it that that's part of the b i decide my problem is how serious is the threat because while edmund was beaten in the head and his foot was broken and while the sister in law martin martin was attacked and was beaten and her face was cut there were threats that the cousins that is said the children mark would be hurt they never were and there was a threat to edmonton that his family would be hurt including i guess the test here and he's never been so help me with were primarily directed toward those who had the media interest in the property as opposed to the next generation so where in the record can we go to look to see to whom the death threats were direct pappy just illustrate exactly what so the immigration judge found that that just there's arms had a presumption of colorable interest in the property but she doesn't have a legal interest in the property and the only reason that for that presumption is the family membership need to doesn't even need to go into the reasoning because there's legal issues in the case that require human intervention or what if a court were to go in the reason in the decision can't be based on substantial evidence when there's a failure to consider whether family members should play any role whatsoever in the e made a mistake i'm saying this is only a dispute about land this is not a family membership issue and they do not address family members ship as i think in fact family membership here is a is an issue my problem   a property just you and i totally understand that argument i guess what i don't understand about what you're saying is that if we agree that the i j a slash you know the the aunt is similarly situated to the petitioner they're both closely related to the primary property owner they already cut the aunt and beat her up and so it should be obvious to us that if the primary property owner son goes back to that town he's in a similar danger so why would you why would you advocate for remained for that question why wouldn't he just cl to i guess i don't understand what more you need i mean he's a he's the son of the primary property owner they beat up the primary property owner they told the property owner that he they were going to that they were going to harm his family they have in fact harmed his family specifically his aunt who's further removed from the primary property owner then the then the petitioner i mean what why isn't that enough to establish once you agree with you your question and i realize we're taking you over so well we don't want to talk as long as we need to so don't worry about the time we have a finding that he can relocate safely what do we do with that  this is the issue regarding him and we have to decide whether or not to a substantial evidence to support that the problem one that's relevant i believe because in order to determine whether you can avoid the nobody in now is this are going to be easily relocation but i ask a quick question about that this may be a product of my lack of experience and in these types of cases but on this question are we supposed to be reviewing the analysis of the immigration judge which is i see is about three sentences or are we supposed to be reviewing the analysis of the i have on this question which appears to be zero  now i'm not supposed to be i'm not supposed to be looking at this this one paragraph that the i j a wrote and analyzing whether that that is supportable on the question of whether it's reasonable to require him to relocate to a different part of mexico that's correct so now so we can look to the j decision to inform the earth as to what the b s i was really was it t one final question for me so do you challenge the fact that their land dispute was at least part of the reason that there was harm or threat because they day and they wouldn't have been targeted that's that's what they said in their in their application that's what's in the application honor the record does not compel reversal of the agency's denial of withholding of removal or protection under the convention against torture in this case i was st to go with holy number move all with the agency properly denied based on the petitioner staler to show that it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted because of his family in mexico and additionally based on his failure to show that he could not reasonably and safely relocate within mexico upon his return now st turning to the question of next that at the outset the agent the board did not err on remained in discerning no clear error in the immigration  binding the question of nexus of the two party inquiry st the agency must consider the underlying nexus or the underlying motive excuse me which is a question of fact only if the immigration judge finds that there are multiple notices a mixed mode of analysis do they then go to the legal question of whether the protected grounds would be a reason for the harm for withholding of removal here the immigration shows just decision it's clear that the immigration talking over you that strikes me is well over the following sense would respect edmund the father and possibly with respect to his siblings and possibly even with respect to th law this court stated that it's not enough to have two characteristics that are shared by a group of people instead the petitioner must show that the harm was motivated by the protected ground in this case the agency found the fact that petitioners family members or himself would be harmed there's not show that the harm was motivated by the family membership in put that a little bit  f so he has no power to control where the land goes by what he actually does own this is he's being attacked because he's a family member and therefore the father of his family tries the least to th circuit case law to make this point he's he's arguing that but for his family membership he wouldn't be targeted and it's important to know that this is not the law of this circuit and i circuit does not play does not apply a but for test instead we must show that there is there's an independent motive based on the family i think we could demonstrate this if the if the interest in land dropped away with still be independently motivated to harm the family for instance if the father sold the land with the zeta still be going after the family there's no evidence to show that it's only the the petitioner argues this but for an if it's clear that they're going after the family and in that we're not you know that even if we even if we say look there is there's no cartel on the face of this earth that would you know what we're only just going to go after one generation we're going to go after we're not going to go after another generation in a family because you know we we think we should limit ourselves to one generation any any cartel would if they if they truly intend to go after family they're going to go after family and presumably the closer the family member is to to the property owner the more likely they are to go after that that family member but so if we conclude that the that the cartel was after the family you're saying that because the reason that the cartel was after the family is because they wanted property means that there's no claim concluded that the most effective way to get the property is to threaten the family and go after the family and cut members of the family and they and let's assume for the sake of argument that we don't think that they're there sitting around making fine distinctions between generations or or things like that you're saying that even if they're motivated to go after the family  that that because of the reason they're going after the family is because they want property means that there's no claim here it means that there is no that's the agency did not air  the finding is there is nothing independent about the family so what would be a reason if what would be a reason for going would be a reason for going after the sample that would would give them a claim yet i'm asking you to assume for the sake of argument that this cartel is has decided that they want to threaten the family not just you know not not parse how close related they a family member is to to the property owner example this is the st circuit decision in this case the the say those kidnapped the father and asked for ransom from the family members the family member paid the ramp and the zetas actually th killed the father but then continued to threaten the family after the other family members after the father had been murdered in this case their show that there was something else about the family specifically that was motivating the in the petitioner's declaration he indicated that after his honor with attacked they then said that his cousin could be next however those threats were on for field and there's no evidence in the record that shows that the petitioner was ever directly threatened with harm and i think that that's important if they question the next this and this question of clear probability of harm are two distinct bases here as the agency found the fact that the similarly situated family members were not harmed undercut undercut the petitioners ability to show that he would more likely than not be harmed for withholding of a movable it's a higher standard of showing the the probability of future harm and you know i think that oh i'm sorry you say that that th it was saying that they were that the cartel was parsing out the degree of interest that family members had in this land to decide who to target and in not to target well i think again the immigration judge was no had to pass to the side whether the petitioner had not have burden of showing whether he would more likely than not be harmed be persecuted in do just sharia i was just going to say but it's based on the seemingly made up distinction between the the degree of interest that somebody has in the proper respond response father inherited a direct share of the land and the respondents onse presumably had a colorable interest in the land through her husband's share now i take it that what the i j a is saying is that the cartel must have concluded that the honest share is somehow stronger the aunt's interest in the land is somehow stronger than you know the  petition or the cousins or whatever so they decided to go after her what support is there in the record for that where does that where is that come from i mean the cartel didn't go to the aunt and say we you know we're targeting you because you have an interest in this land we're cutting you because you have an interest in this land they when they attacked her they said that they were doing so because they wanted her husband and brother in law to sell the land rights as they didn't say the right they insert you want you to sell it said tell you her husband and brother in law to to sell the land i mean what's what's the difference between that and and   to the primary property owners eldest son and saying tell your father to sell the one i just this distinction that the i j a i mean it seems to be totally made up and i just don't understand how d a cartel would possibly be drawing distinctions between generations or degree of property ownership or property interest in deciding which family member to threaten to try to get a piece of land that was well i think f question a clear probability the immigration judge again was looking at the evidence in front of him and say that again clear probability is a very high standard and more likely than not standard in this court in the heating indicated that is when considering this question a key aspect is whether the petitioner himself has ever been directly harmed in this case the petitioner has never experienced any past harm and he has the by that there were no direct threats against him and so i think what the immigration judge was saying was let's look at everyone who has been harmed it's clear that motivated based on their land interests in in going after people who they thought they could would most directly get get the land from and other family members for instance other other family members who were unrelated to the land had not been harmed and i think that the immigration judge was looking at all that evidence to determine whether the petitioner had met his high burden do we have any evidence in the record with respect to siblings durant's to all family members as they does it make when made they made throughout phone threat they said that if the uncle and father did not sell the harm more serious things could happen to the family however they never they didn't point out this effect family members and again on the petitioner said of his declaration that they said to the op that the cousins could be next you cut out you address the relocation issue of course trying to relocation the record does not compel reversal of this issue either as the agency found are in about half of the states in in the exit poll they only have control about over half the states about half the states and mexico the c r s record indicates or report indicates that eighty percent of the violence connected to drug trafficking is concentrated to just under seven of seven percent of the missing minas apologies in mexico in addition as the immigration judge found the petitioners claim that police officer would work with the zetas to track him down is back to live the record shows that the vedas have never tried to track down any other family members in any other towns or even family members who it indicated that it affirmed the immigration judges relocation finding and so they bore the court excuse me can look at the immigration judge's decision to be extent that he know i'm looking at this paragraph written by the i j a and i'm comparing it to the regulation which instructs the the jew to cater the immigration judge to consider a  variety of factors in deciding whether it's reasonable to require somebody to relook and it and we step st glance it seems like th the immigration judge only considered a very small portion of the group small number of the factors that the that the judges are directed by that regulation to consider when conducting this analysis and i was certainly analogizing this case too like a social security case where we judges are reviewing the decision by the administrative law judge and and that's an area i have more familiarity with and you can correct correct me if you think the comparison is in doubt but in a social security case if we were a few in this analysis by you know that the judge the l j would say well this is this is clearly inadequate in that  did not appear to consider that the vast majority of the factors they are supposed to consider when conducting an analysis like this is that it is not a problem for you in this case well again the  waived any any challenge to this aspect of the immigration judges decision i'd say st off that i think that the immigration guys did consider a certain number of important factors including the petitioners age and health and i think of a big part of this was the petitioner testified that when he st went to the united states he was able despite not knowing the language  know yet elementary school age and and he does it so we have all these family ties in the united states and presumably social ties in the united states he has some family in the in the that is where where we will sue for the sake of argument you can't go back there so he would be asked to go relocate to some other part of of mexico where it isn't any social connections as far as we know where maybe he does and it's just not in the i just really not i don't know but it's did he did the i j a analyze any of that stops as part of the question whether it's reasonable to require and relocate i would have i will look i'm guessing the answer is no because it wasn't part of that we have a right not enough to preserve the issue it's incumbent on the board to make sure it's its own regulations correctly i'm talking about before us if an issue this is in an opening brief it has to be were playing a role in the harm the petitioner would suffer and the harm the petitioners answered in the past it's reasonable immigration judge didn't make this finding because this romero had not existed yet but in the absence of this finding the agency just doesn't