today is whether the board was correct to deny their claim as their social group analysis in this case and i'd like to start out by going into those details  so there's a family relationship in this case where the small family single mother was five children and the mother initiated s various complaints against a government official lists other government officials in the complaints goes on to address the mass media and the prime minister of the country prosecutor general and for that the persecutor does not target her directly he goes after the children and there are four specific instances of brutal attacks on her children one after another as well as repeated threats over a period of years and it is difficult to make an argument that without something that's not addressed by the immigration judge in any way or the board for that matter  no evidence of past persecution you're talking about particular social group the if there's no past persecution he's not entitled to a presumption of future persecution and if there's that issue this case was never presented as a pastor secure case this case was always presented as a well founded fear of future persecution case based on attacks against the family members in their native country a social group now as well they didn't really even address the elements of a social group that's right they just missed it in one sentence right they said the immigration judge found no reasonable chance that the respondent would be harmed for any reason upon his return to cures extend because we conclude that this finding is not clearly erroneous rican strewed this finding as effectively denying the respondents applications for asylum and withholding every move on account of membership in a particular social group namely his family but if you go to the air with jay's opinion that first statement about for any reason it just doesn't you can't find that in the l j did talk about threats made to him and to his family he mentioned one brother nissho he was beat up and confronted because of the complaints were filed another brother was attacked but that wasn't school right i can't pronounce it bill and so he was the fellow who was building the house the store in front of their longstanding store right yes and he apparently was a government official in some town up the road but he had connections to other government officials and he was apparently they claim that he was using his influence to bypass all the requirements to build his store and they were complaining about his about him and therefore that's as i understand it the basis that he was using his political influence  to get his way and they were complaining about that and that is the basis for a political person for their political claim but the i but the i j a said well no this is just a dispute between two business let it let me address all of these issues first of all again the immigration judge specifically found my client credible asked all matters and then in the presentation  various documents some medical documents testimonies are listed at least four physical attacks against my client siblings in his native country all related to his mother's activities which is filing complaints addressing them to the mass media and to the government so i don't read the boards decision as specifically finding that family's not suffering persecution they just decided it doesn't meet the threshold for political opinion or a social group status for my for my for the petitioner now  interesting fact is well as the judge and the government somewhat try to minimize or mischaracterize who we're dealing with this isn't just the police official in a neighboring town this is the head of the department of licensing in the capital city of the country a city that's larger than seattle or san francisco for that matter you don't become the head of that department by just being a regular police officer he is a high ranking police official he is supported by a prosecutor a regional prosecutor his son is also a regional prosecutor and this is a group of people that the mother of my client well the only thing i could you know i'm not sure this what you're saying is relevant to my question is relevant but i was just trying to figure out the what his position was i was just trying to figure that out and i found some place that he was no longer in that position when he started constructing this so there is an article that was submitted in support of my client's case but talked about that government official fighting for the same position was another police officer but what the article is saying that that dispute was an resolved back in two thousand and twelve and we submitted that simply as proof that that person in fact exists and in fact he holds a position of power in the country now the court the immigration judge accepted my client's testimony asked true and in that testimony w clarified that that person is in fact still in that position he was able to regain that post though he didn't have it and he regained like he had he there was a dispute after some turbulence in the country and then he regained it basically the i j found that this was a business dispute between two business owners and one had more political influence than the other that was sort of the bottom line and then  the key night circuit case and i can remember the day of it was where someone very powerful in the entire state was getting bribes from businesses to order to stay in business one business didn't want to give a bribe and so he was arrested and in order to get out he had to pay a certain amount of money to the government the madam out of money ended up being the same as the bribe was and i can't remember the name of the case but basically that seems to be the seminal ninth circuit case this is you can have that kind of what a call you can have that kind of influence as a politician i couldn't find anything in this record to show that this man was taking trying to get bribes from a lot of business is when you think he he had a dispute with with the family that had the had the grocery store and sundry store and he was building a store  why our case is more compelling is precisely because it doesn't and wall of that official taking bribes it involves that official abusing his power and using his position to region the law will be what i say it is he is acting was complete impunity and what bander standing that he's backed up by regional prosecutors and  other police officials so this is the gist of our argument why this is political because they complained about the abuse of power they they complained about his connections to other government officials which is complaining about corruption and they retaliation came in response to these complaints and he wasn't asking the family to pay bribes he wasn't actually asking them to move their story out of the way or close it down they were telling them to shut your mouth basically stop making noise  the morning honors may please the court alexander lose for the government your honor judge black's questions two opposing counsel near the end of his presentation really zeroed in on the heart of this case the immigration judge found in this case that the harm mr akyol of or the threat that he suffered in the past in the harm he feared suffering in the future for mr rascal of was just unrelated to a political opinion or membership in any particular social group the immigration judge said it pages fifty six and fifty seven this is a dispute among two property owners this is clearly a private action on mr risky last part of the government is unrelated to this difficulty the record does not compel reversal of that finding and that knocks out all the other issues in this case with respect to mr achatz application for asylum and withholding could you show me in the point to me point out to me in the elegies decision where he discusses the social group basis for the claim your honor i don't think he discusses the cognitive ability of the particular social group itself i think what he says instead and this disposes of the particular social group claim is we can tell from this record what mr risky lobs motive was or would be and because we can tell that because it's a dispute between grocery store owners and mr wristwatch desire to retaliate against complaints that are slowing down his process of building that store because we know that's the motive the motive isn't political opinion or membership in a particular well we have that he did make a bit a claim for a claim for asylum based on a particular social group his family correct your honor he did and we have said our case law is pretty clear that when a petitioner makes a claim the it's just it's not there and second when i read the b i use decision they're pretty clear to we construe this finding as effectively deny i mean our case law generally says when the bill does when the agency does not address a claim that the petitioner raises you know it goes back so they can do that well respectfully your honor i point out that this court has also held that the agency doesn't need to specifically take apart each and every particular claim they just have to render an opinion that addresses it in here the immigration judge ren finding that disposed of the argument that your honour's talking about the immigration judge says that page fifty six alone so page fifty six sure your honor of of the record or of of the record your honor the page numbers in the bottom right corner are all right i got it ok so there's a paragraph that starts near the top of that page begins for a while right where the same place the claim must relate to one of the enumerated bases and it appears that the construction of this property is completely unrelated this is a dispute  two property owners in which one is using his influence as money at the detriment of a lesser individual i'm skipping to the start of the next sentence there's no indication other than the possible consent that was required that there was necessarily any construction defect in the constructing of this property and  if we step down to the middle of that paragraph there's a sentence that reads so it appears this is a clearly private action on his part in this activity can't be condoned and then he goes on further in the context of cat protection which is on the next page to looking at different pages i was looking at fifty six just then but turning to the point that your honor raises he says in the context of a cat claim he says does not indicate that the official capacity of the owner of the stores involved there is no indicate that the problem would escalate if the respondent were to return you have sorted through the findings and have have made a compelling case but the basic problem that i see or concern is that is that the judge is talking about the beginning about political asylum and says this is business people and one has more influence i got that then the judge goes to the cat climb talks about that and never mentions at any time social group or family now you can take language from from both of those put it together and says this addresses a social argument but i can't find a place where the go where the i j a ever ever alludes to social group you know i think that's right i think in his recitation of the facts of the claim he made a fulsome analysis and i think that the findings he ran are disposed of that because you're on or whether the group is cognizable and whether there's a nexus to mr active membership in the group are two different and equally dispositive issues and if the immigration judge on that second issue says we know what mr rascal i was motive would be and we're talking about an access the only question is motive we know what mr risk was motive would be we know it would not be to harm mr active on account of her because of a protected ground that disposes of the particular social group issue in other words i agree with your honor's that the immigration judge could have discussed this more but i would not agree that that's a basis for remained because the immigration judge rendered a fully defensible finding supported by substantial evidence that moves out that issue well they understand the social group family claimants that there was a member of this family operated this business they work together there was  j or by the u s and as i said before i keep saying this but we have made it clear that when they went to petition or raises a claim like this the board has to the agency has to address  i just fail to see here where that claims it's treated as a political opinion case and you may be right the board may be right and maybe on the merits of this good family this guy's going to lose but the agency still needs to address  honor again our position is that the agency did address it by rendering a finding that disposes of and i see that that's not persuading your honor of our position here but i would just point out that even if there would be no purpose in a remained here because the finding that the immigration judge rendered in that the board adopted which says we know what the motive here is and it is not a nexus to a protected ground we know that mr bristow i was motivated by this personal dispute in these complaints not by his membership in a group not by a political opinion that does dispose of this claim there's a presumption that the immigration judge considers the claims in the evidence that are in a record the immigration judge gave a long recitation of the facts here and there would have been no purpose and further treading into these waters because the finding the immigration judge rendered as to mr risk allows motive fully disposes of this family claim that's the point we made in our brief with respect to matter of ellie the question when it comes to nexus is e it doesn't have to be the motive it has to be the central it will be other modes it is this to be the central mode well i think that's true your honor in a mixed motive case in other words there are some cases there be mixed motives here the immigration judge didn't find that your honor the whole point well your honor i think that that may be a different question from what your honor was asking about a moment ago i think a minute ago your honor was asking whether the agency needed to further delve into the family claim and our response is no because the finding they rendered as supported by substantial evidence record disposes of that but separately there's a question of whether this is a mixed motive case or an either or case i think that's where we're headed now and your honor there certainly are claims where an attacker persecutor can have more than one motive and the immigration judge is called upon to sift through them and find out which one is central but this isn't that case here the immigration judge said we know from the evidence in this record that this was the attackers motive is motive was to retaliate against m because they were slowing him down in building this grocery store because they're making complaints that required to pay out further bribes to try to get people on his side this isn't a case where there are multiple possible motives the immigration judge would have had to make a finding about that and then proceed to analyze it are the facts and call out for that analysis we can tell what the persecutors motive was in your honors if i could just make one final point with the time that remains to me i turn to another question judge black asked a moment ago which was about the political opinion angle in this case that case that your honor was complaints to a government about private action and then private retaliation there's no evidence connecting mr rascal lobs post he didn't use his public resources to engage in this dispute there's no evidence connecting whatever official to make of his statement that you know the laws as i say there with them words to that he did say the laws like you look will be as i say it will be but your honor that was in the context of this dispute about the grocery store he said that right after mr active said please stop building this grocery the that they were complaining about his building of the store in front of their store that's true your honor but out there were required permits that's true your honor but that doesn't mean that he used his official capacity to engage in this dispute with mr ak and back to syria and the courts said that one of the keys that case was that the attacker quote used the resources of his office to retaliate or in fajin yack the victim complained to a mare and a chief of police who personally threatened the victim because of those complaints here to the contrary what we see is that when mr active complained to the government about rascal of misconduct the government sent out investigators they issued an opinion that this building was out of code in order to be stopped we have evidence that  mr may have retaliated by sending criminals but he didn't send the police or tax inspectors or criminal investigators there for the questions from powell your honor we respectfully request that the court deny the petition for you ok thank you you have one minute for reb well i apologize for the confusion but more decision doesn't mention pastor secure son or future persecution they simply denied it for lack of an axis which were disputing there jack i specifically stated that problems arose not from the personal dispute but  because under the facts of the case i'm not sure how you can find that certainly there were several attacks against family members or brutal attacks supported by medical records and cousin was murdered and the sister was threatened and stating that a family is acquaintances essential social group under any ninth circuit analysis we don't have that in this case