protect him and further that such a claim with weight because it was a challenge to this is actually erroneous st because the issue was clearly raised by the petitioner and his b i eat grief additionally the issue was raised at the or had failed to establish a particular social group however based on the evidence in the record petitioners testimony testimony from a expert witness on country condition group nuclear and extended family the lower court held that the group with a more fast and it lacked clear boundaries and therefore there is no particular ready however her all appellate courts have at various times held that family is a protected ground and in this case specifically the family unit is defined by the bloodline and by law throughout the case the petitioner references specifics as to uncles who suffered violence in guatemala she references a specific uncle by name that kidnappers refer to at the time they would think how is it in captivity and reference to the harm  it must be considered in the context of a particular country in this case mr project will explain that he grew up with his extended family and was close to them out so in this particular case this family group is defined by close relatives so nuclear and extended family including his cousins his aunts the only that you can essentially grew up with perhaps not the deaf definition wouldn't be you know it nuclear family that we envision here in the united states and taken into const context where he grew up in guatemala yes we are referring to a family outside of the nuclear family however again that's clearly defined by it's limited by bloodline yes there are different last names here but that's also you know something that happens culturally in other countries the mix of last names but still there w imposed by nature and by law so i believe that based on you know the reading of these cases and the reading of what's considered a family for a particular social group marriage does include is included in petitioners family is socially distinct in guatemala this family has endured at minimum eighty eight dollars various acts of violence against family members that resulted in death specifically one cousin was shot over eighty times in a country the size of guatemala decided to let the west virginia this family stood out for the harm that they had suffered and the fact that they had various family members that were in law you know evidence here he can't change his relationship to his family that's something that you simply can't change and so based on the fact that he meet the three prongs of this particular social group for a family had believed that he them at one point they were told that their best bet was just to pray to god and you know hope that i would provide sufficient protection that expert witness testified that the expert country conditions expert testified that violence against the family have moved away so well it is relevant that there is a family that has been able to remain thieves lean what amala they're not similar to the really situated to defend that they didn't have the close relationship to the not similarly situated to send money situated to the petitioner their situation is different they didn't have the you know the history that the petitioner didn't they hadn't been kidnapped and endured conditions  that threat the petitioner had and were as a result of his relationship with his uncle and the close association he had with them that was part of what resulted in him being targeted and so while it's relevant that other family members  persecution when you have to and the government would have the responsibility to demonstrate that you can safely relocate and then that would be a separate issue but you haven't got well that very well may be true but even assuming that the issues were preserved and had not been away for the court should still deny to petition for easier because the particular social group that petitioner identified the nuclear relatives if you look at the record the petitioner actually identified the young person that assisted him after the kidnapping he referred to that individual as both a stranger a relative and a friend when he or any ultimately decided that the person was a friend even though he didn't even know him then with regard to his friends yogi and ask are there too that came from the united states to get their mother to make sure she didn't get kidnapped petitioner initially testified that those two individuals were relatives as well but constitute a relative but he testified to the court that he actually had considered people who were not what other people think are commonly relatives he believed them to be relatives ok so that's the argument that i'm making is that he actually looked at people that weren't is no longer me that definition and based on the value say he actually has had attenuated relationships with people who weren't actually relatives then who can be sure who followed within the reach the group that actually refer to the other individual jovian after as having been attacked and it's based on a record it could be that tenuously claiming people that are relatives as relatives both her claim could be if one of the fears that the agency could have had that was under these particular circumstances and that and although like you said there is a common idea one of the definitions that was raised in petitioners brief was that extended family usually  nodded to somebody who was a family outside of your nuclear family but they were still within the same household so there's not a short cut delineation about who would constitute extended family or not extended family by the webster's definition and petition to bring the extended family would have to be somebody within the same household based on webster's dictionary based on dr behrman testimony a person family and i don't mean number wise it's just within a society can a person actually delineate who is included in that group and like petitioners that it's based on cultural and social contact but there haven't been any evidence specifically is is supported by substantial evidence in the record the record actually show that the guatemalan government has taken efforts to control gang violence shows otherwise is that the reason why he actually has a claim is because the police efforts of his uncle the there is no evidence no record that there is any scarcity of resources the record actually shows the some of the extended family members were actually involved in gang activity and they weren't being targeted because a platonic out of their heads their proximity to him but rather because it here on activities that include the fact that the petition admitting that he had a cousin and a personal friend of theirs that was trying to recruit him into the gang and they were willing to harm his gambling  know it's relevant to the actions or the criminal activity of the individual calls into question what was the government's obligation in those particular going after gang members which is the reason why he suspects that he should be harmed provide the basis that the government is willing and able to protect him as he said he said the police to his brother in law was a doing their job tends to cut against the fact that he said that they're unable and unwilling to protect him family having suffered a loss of so many other members then including you know like i mentioned earlier one individual was shot over eighteen times there's no record that there is any conviction or any real investigation done