three citizens of italy won a from a national of iran which was subsequently denied by the immigration judge and the appeal was denied by the board of immigration appeals the board denied the case on three specific grounds and failed or chose not to address a ground that was pivotal in the case as well addressing the three points one by one number one was that the threats did not rise to the level indicated in limb and as such  individuals could not be afforded the presumption of well founded fear of persecution number two the objective prong of their well founded fear was not met and number three they could have relocated to another part of italy in any event the courtroom was to completely ignore and it's in the second paragraph of the second page of the decision the issue of particular social group although in doing that they could have addressed it not for its own sake where it goes to the nexus but also where it goes to the objective prong of well founded fear of future persecution where a pattern and practice of persecution of certain individuals based on the five enumerated grounds would have been crucial and i believe that in not addressing that issue the decision that they have made is incomplete and incorrect but going to the three issues that they did address number one was whether the threats rose to the level indicated in limited cases since slim as to cause significant actual suffering and harm the courts since slim have incrementally enlightened us as to what the word hope because the attackers did not know him they showed no continuing interest in him after they assaulted him it is true though that in this case there were contingencies mike rick i don't believe so you are with respect correct me then sure we had prior to and e v g a we had characterized the social group as immediate family members of those mafia members who have become or can possibly become police informants and the mafia as we know them has every interest to silence somebody who's even contemplating  being being an informant i believe now we don't have an ever dearest that her husband was contemplating being in the form only evidence we have a record is there a vocal was arrested is that right had to be have his her testimony and we  her testimony she says the lawyer had told her husband you better give up and the husband talked to her and said they have talked to me i need to cooperate with them you better leave the country and in this circuit in the ninth circuit l cooperate though we don't but we i don't think we need to because as long as we were part of the problem that she doesn't know either and she can't has no control over him so in other words she doesn't know either and if at any point he cooperates  and she has no control over that absolutely and i believe based on her testimony in the second hearing before the immigration judge she has no communication with him he may have actually cooperated and disappeared into the witness protection plan we don't know where he is all we have is what we have we have to play the cards that we're dealt and we know that the he did during the hearing she testified that he had said i'm going to cooperate you better leave the country and that's what she did he had to see that he was going to cooperate yes or did he say that they were pressuring him to cooperate which was you know that he's going to cooperate ok he actually i'm paraphrasing a little bit i think he said things are getting tough and i'm going to cooperate i in the number of threats there was physical proximity there was a confrontation and the perpetrators knew them and also the person was being pursued and there was a similarity other people had suffered harm by the same perpetrators this is the case for us everybody knows that the mafia silence is people that are against it are informants so miss million had every right to think that when they come and say your child looks beautiful or your daughter is beginning to look like a husband by the way we know your home address that they mean business they didn't have to pull a gun they didn't have to say we are going to kill what in fact on your argument of the fact that the amount  august she did not say if this question was specifically put to her during the second hearing she returned to italy to sign the papers there is a three year waiting period apparently based on italian law before you king seek a divorce yes the she have i presume she would have a continuing interest in the safety of her children is absolutely your honor and also we've all heard of sham divorces i have no idea maybe the divorce in the first place was propagated for  safety whether that works or not i don't know but i don't think the mafia lacks being cynical enough not to believe that council if let's say we agree with you on that she established past persecution the part of the case i'm having the most trouble with from your perspective is that there's nowhere in italy that she can be resettled if we agree with you on past persecution how does that affect our analysis on resettlement in italy we need to reset it back to the board that it is a standard of review change or does the burden change before that or the burden absolutely changes because a presumption of well founded fear arises upon a showing of past persecution that's milk when young versus ashcroft that also isn't isn't that larry relocation  standards somewhat different a point that my question is yes it is different your honor it has to be demonstrated by the preponderance of evidence once that showing is made that she can relocate someplace else and your honors a page for ninety four of the record the proceedings the prime minister of italy at the time says that this is a situation that will never go away and mafia bosses are still prepared to silence those who oppose them he's talking about political figures if after political figures what about people like the passion here let me ask you something else as you noted that the board second time around one of and the court indulges me because since this has been fluid i believe the petition to should be given the chance to we characterize what they meant as a social group comprised of family members of organized crime gang members who suffered persecution on account of their family ties where the gang member was arrested and stood in a position to or contemplated becoming an informant and where the contemplation was known by the previous court or the i just wonder why you essentially said these weren't really threats or wear off that i take yes or other ok what we have now is the agency looked at both her written statement which is much more clear detailed and her testimony which is a not as clear but the agency considered both and considered that these threats which were yes they were in person but they were a total of four times that reverses the the point that was raised before if the court finds that these for instance compel a finding of past persecution then the burden does shift and the board should be really be permitted to address how the burden plays  the first one occurred in one thousand nine hundred seven the second three occurred in two thousand and five the first one in one thousand nine hundred seven we know scared her but then over time her she wasn't scared in fact on her first visit to the united states in two thousand four about the three that were close in time because you can't come still in a vacuum the first one is not divorced from the second because the first one involve the child and three of the four involve the child i agree that th they were all considered together yes your honor could i just meant that in two thousand and four she came to the united states and instead of seeking asylum at that time she went back to italy it was after the three in two thousand and five that she came to the united states and sought asylum under second visit here but as to the facts that indicate this these were not themselves past persecution i do my own the standard of reviewing the fact that a reasonable person could conclude that these finding that's all i meant to refer you on so if the burden is on the door and i believe a reasonable fact finder could also conclude that the circumstances do not create a well founded fear of persecution let me ask you this counsel let's say i'm asking the same question i asked you are opposing counsel if we think in fact that she did show past persecution but personally let's say i'm having trouble with the idea that she could not be resettled anywhere in italy which i think is the question here what do we do do we need to send that back to the board is the issue yes your honor because the burden would burden would change at that point where the the the board on he didn't say anything and the board cites to nothingness and other words there was this discussion that we're having now about whether these are the particulars of the actual threats and the fact that the children were involved in the fact that they were  says with no discussion there was no past persecution and the board says with no discussion we agree with the i j a and cite something it doesn't have any now says either say that the fact that this was some of the and the fact that they seem to you know and in many situations carry out their threats and the fact that they make threats in a certain fashion when they are smart enough to to be somewhat circumspect but people know what they mean  and the fact that they did this in a confrontational and just dripping fashion she says she was upset people would be upset and there's just nothing here that deals with it a marginal situation is one in which a reasonable person could find that if they did that's what i'm saying if they did but that's just kind of sloughed off how they say the transcript page and i'm not sure that's true but if it is true at least you think somebody might tell you why well they say that i mean why is because they compared it to situations like lim lynn says that threats in a general situation don't constitute pastors in order for them to count they have to be particularly severe they have to be particularly harm inducing they have to be particularly prologue and over  i said you know and no way that it's not terribly convincing that these weren't really threats and that you know so then somebody had a near office came up here the first time seemed to been sufficiently bothered by that that you asked for a man and then we started all over again and so the whole first episode was was based on an eye seems to me and completely implausible rating on the record and now we're back to a second round and then but so the question is did they what evidence do we have that they actually did consider these just threats take them seriously and hate i did and deal with that the details of them ten asked as to what standard the standard is limb which says cause a significant actual suffering i'm sorry threats or words menacing enough to cause significant actual suffering and harm and i believe they should include of doing it and the board has not actually analyzed the daily first two pages from the transcript which is basically the three incidents that she described and the one incident in one thousand nine hundred seventy there is no analysis of it as far as  the board's decision is concerned they also do the same thing with the issue of future persecution they refer to things that have nothing to do with that part of the analysis just words and this is the second time of appeared before you and something