that it is the reason that congress in going back and modifying the asylum statute which is not a political in this case modified it to one central needs to that issue the government has we never answer is no internet where i should use the word intriguing it's an interesting issue after this congress changed only the asylum statute chose not to remand the withholding were torture convention relief statute and so based on that many evening and terms of statutory interpretation look you have tattoos they said look at that those tattoos that you have which need it least will try to fuck to say they were referencing the decision  new claim to the agency apply the wrong next a standard to his request for withholding not remove all now positions counsel argued this morning that he raised the mixed motive stander but mixed motives standard is not great is not the same thing as rais withholding only you agree that once the one central reason standard applied to exclude cases other candles of this court have to term and then be excluded cases it is one central reason not simply a reason now not only that he's basically arguing that a less less rigorous standard should apply and that argument certainly was never made low in fact he may argue the opposite blow to the board he conceded that matter has the issue not been exhausted but by failing to address in his opening brief the fact that he is raising a not exhaustive issue and not arguing to this court at any point in the either his first or second briefs why this court  i would hope that i would hope that it would not do so because i insist on it have it was not it was not properly raise and i don't i don't think that this is the proper vehicle for it and i would just point out that you know we have  withholding to keep holding matter they actually determined a new tax which they claimed they were finding in that particular section of twelve thirty one b three c and they were to basically plucking language from the receipt in saying actually what congress meant to do was not require one special reason but apply any reason which directly goes against legislative intent provided in the real id act which is that congress wanted to overrule ninth congress meant to offset the higher offset the higher likelihood of persecution requirement which is their probability it's not well founded fear in the well holding statute pirating a lower nexus the answer that this notion ha absolutely no support in the legislative history and has the potential to up and tens of thousands of cases that have applied a higher standard across the board if this has huge operational implications we're basically talking about aggregate i think actually it was a remained in this case that as the board one of the immigration judge to address these issues in the aggregate and that's exactly what the immigration judge did it and the board to do this while what they found they are held the immigration judge is betting that the march two thousand fourteen incident did not rise to the level of persecution and that is something that the petitioner is not contesting any of this brings but then the war went on to say and we believe that there is reasonable for the board to conclude that the one unrelated in of march two thousand and fourteen did not bridge the evidentiary gap of attributing nexus for one incident the second incident that he calls these related incidents i think the government would maintain they're not they were not the same after he was very clear that in march of two thousand and fourteen he was beaten by mexican soldiers in august of two thousand and fourteen he was he was beaten by the by the federal police these were took these were not related temporally that took place five months apart the only thing that's really common that these incidents have in common is that on both occasions mr mudge azuma walked into a drug interdiction in march of two  three ninety four so again in august of two thousand and fourteen he has to lay hands of federal police and he said where they were having an operation and i decided to walk through where the police for and they grabbed me and we don't have to do and there's no guesswork really involved in why he was pulled over and mistreated in august of two thousand and fourteen he was the agent not only did he walk into the area where this drug interdiction was going on one might say on advisedly secondly it was explained the agents told him why they stopped him they stopped him and pulled him into the cemetery because one of the men who tattoos were not referenced until he was already on the ground and had already been beaten and he was saying it's not me it's not me i'm not the drunk a j and i believe in riyadh in response to that there wasn't a very ambiguous reference to the tat the language at the record three ninety six is look at yourself you are all full of tech to use look at the tattoos you have now in latin america tattoos and being adored with many another piece of the air evidence they think it's really that's really critically important here and that is what is what happened to mr not to soon after this it's and in august he remained in mexico for three additional mines and had no further problems now he said he went out every day he said that he and infrequently at night there is no indication that is to have to recover and he had no difficulty that what he didn't do and this is going testimony is he said that after they had august two thousand and fourteen