search for his brother he testified that he went to hospitals to jails and to the state run work part of the state attorney's office to give the state authorities his name and his address and told them the numbers of the cartel had taken his brother as a result of his actions the cartels both the protective grounds of political opinion and the particular social groups of mexicans who report to the ortiz and family the i j found respondents very credible and believable witnesses and that it was evident that they were both afraid of mexico and that political opinion of being anti cartel under read a lot of escobar v holder the court must analyze whether or not there was an objective basis between the harassment and the political opinion that was held the objective basis in this case is whether or cartels had a particular ideology and the i j a r eighty two and eighty three limited their analysis to stating that mr sulu was simply looking for his brother performed no additional analysis and no just  i just wanted to know what action what actions would have been taken that that awaits the poor the notion that a political opinion was attributed to them a very credible evidence that the i g found included mr artist testimony which stated that he told the authorities that it was the cartels who took his brother and when asked why do you think they will harm you he said i will die i think because they would never let them catch me but he also stated i think that they are men think that i filed a report against them because they think i am looking for them because i left my information on the heels of that a political opinion because they were overt acts against the cartel who had shown and it is known in their community that individuals who are speaking out and then and going against their wishes that that is against the  cartels and regarding the error of the underlying words they did not analyze whether or not there was an objective basis and that is very credible testimony which we reviewed and as well as the h opinion but they rely on the i j a and they the i j a merely said that geraldo was simply looking for his brother and made no analysis regarding any objective basis or a particular ideology of  cartels in order to analyze whether or not there was a political opinion so there was no analysis made it was a very brief one line statement in fact the judge very quickly and  basically talking about how there was a political ideology in all of this was used to show that there was political opinion if i may when they are two they are two on nine talks about a political ideology  grounds were stated and the language is such that the translation with and from spanish to english is sometimes used as authorities and sometimes is used as a lease and both were used within the ok the facts presented were complex scenario than mr slaughter you simply looking for his brother mr stiller you took concrete overt steps and as a result the cartels began to intimidate and threaten him and his family the lower court failed to make an analysis of the whole opposition embellish in fact the judge stated it was evident from their demeanor in court and the expressions on their faces that they were goals of graded not of testifying but of mexico and went on to explain how important all of their testimony was and even if they were not highly educated to be able to explain all those things they went to multiple places and show that i would like to say that the i j a made an abuse of discretion when they starter you would have you agree that he would you agree that the the family as a persecuted social group issue was not raised before the i j a i do not agree with that i is my argument and i may i take a moment to find the case  that you point us into the record of where the family typically social group of family was raised at all to be throughout the period just family was mentioned throughout and is the core of the argument was it mentioned as a particular social group when at the end there was a very brief interaction between the attorney and the judge where the judge asked briefly so are you considering family and the judge is what i was asking himself because what i was asking is whether i know i know the family was mentioned but whether the resenting specific reference to the family as a persecuted social group