will be permitted to stay in the united states will not be required to return to el salvador let me ask you about those somehow my understanding is they were separated from the other three people in the family and they came in as unaccompanied minors  together and we know that bloggers were minors at the time here so let me ask you about a hypothetical regarding family a social group let's suppose and this is hypothetical it has nothing to do with this case it's an entirely hypothetical suppose that someone in the family is who don't deal and suppose they get into a dispute with their supplier  the supplier says i'm going to kill you if if you don't pay me although that's a serious threat to kill by somebody who's likely to kill that's not persecution on any of the five grounds in the statute is that right that's right that would not be persecution against the drug dealer that's right and that's because it's because of and the logic of your case even though the drug dealer in the family would be entitled to asylum for one of the statutory reasons the other family members would be entitled to asylum for st the police and they thought the police protection the police took a report but did not offer any protection i'm not aware of a case in which his four has held that where that but i don't think they checked with the police to see if the police were doing anything i think they assumed the police were not doing anything and frankly i don't understand i can understand saying you have the money tomorrow or you're dead and i can understand you better get the money or you're going to be dead within a certain amount of time and i just don't understand the threat was something about to happen in eight days but the record doesn't give any particular importance to the fact that eight days potentially be of witness against him and knew that he had publicly repudiated the gang activity i don't think there's i don't think there's anything in the record saying that the reason they were scared of the gang is that the gang targeted them as potential witnesses i think that's them i'm asking a slightly different question i'm asking did they say the reason that they flee that they fled was that they feared being targeted as witnesses but the gang didn't make any specific comments about  not and i'm trying to make to get clear in my head which one is which one isn't or if i just missed the fact that both are we the specific statement in the record  have the record in opposite conclusion and that record is one of a single breath albeit very dire made indirectly that is to say to people that were knew if i don't leave within eight days i will be murders and know i'm sort of thinking ahead to whether families a social group if we were to affirm on the basis that there was no serious threat here of course you don't get to that it would be reminded  well let me ask you something about the death threat i don't understand why getting one threat somebody who is the kind of person who may kill you isn't enough to have a well founded fear that you're going to be killed a death threat somebody who you don't think is very threatening that's not serious but a death threat from somebody who's the head of a murderous gang and he reminds you that he that they've already killed somebody else i don't understand why it takes more than one earth so create a well founded fear ok so i think we're not talking about this is being the threat is against or away for not complying with the demands to its extortionate demands there's no indication that previously the petitioner herself had ever been technique it's like well gosh i guess if i got a threat from one of my wife's colleagues at the university i wouldn't take it seriously and figure it was just  that's serious and here even though the threat is off because of her conduct the common collection take me to say things will be bad for your family if you don't pay even that's for i legitimate and also legitimate claims right i mean you're i completely understand that's right and it is but at the same time we have to remember that it's focused on him and that it's not being rude it is the teacher being removed by or saw and the question is whether or not she will be targeted in the future based on a threat to and so if he doesn't go back and this is one of the things that we're i think  and if if he's home free he's gotten it seems like well i don't see why that makes it less threatening for her if she goes back she's the only one there they've got available to kill in that case i think one of the things that the evidence here show is that the gang is really interested in targeting people who actually can pay the expression an amount they don't really care about people who don't have money   based upon that that at the very least the board could reasonably conclude it wasn't compelled to conclude this but it could reasonably conclude  significant actual harm or wrong or harassment that that's required under one because here the petitioner never testified to those kinds of things i think it best we may have a comment from her that she was more wor to reason to do there are a variety of physical manifestations or emotional manifestations or she could have testified to of how the fred affected her and tell her maybe that's right it's directed at her but here the threat isn't directed or it's directed at we're a raid so we could have kept his mouth shut and we wouldn't we wouldn't have this case there is this intermediary that needs to operate and there's no instructions in the intermediary tell your family or at least there's no testimony that along those lines with jorge right now my understanding he's in texas or something like that no one's looking for him or what's going on with what i say i have no idea the last of the only thing i know from the writer is at the time of the testimony he was somewhere in taxes because he couldn't because he feared living with the petition not one is about the time i don't have a good answer for you on time but i was suspect at the time between the prior threat and when the individual is that are hearing  so at that time she had left and they left and early november of two thousand and fifteen the hearing was sometime and twenty was somewhere and i believe two thousand and seventeen so it's about a two year period that we're talking about there  but i would think that it comes in and especially subsequent to leading there's not been any indication that for instance the game is continuing to look for them right so ti it's possible if for instance if you look at the report of the expert vicinity one of the things that she talks about at length is and it's clear that that declaration has to do with the two sons not to a large extent has been determined by the circus and gotten out in front of the question or how they resolve the question so say for example in the this circuit you know there are so right i'm not sure if we're going to get press but there is plenty of i'm going to ask you to wrap up in a minute right i'm just going to say and then just let me say that you know prosecutors and police officers and then finally as far as the effectiveness which seems to be the big issue there are a number side and el salvador that perhaps they began a dark corner on its own and that the willingness of the government to pursue the game was actually turning into a factor in this as well and the court has no further questions for me family left before the eight days and there was no subsequent to the report contact with the police if i got that wrong no you've got that right and if i'm going to the police and telling them that then why are you saying that the police requested that the police look into the right to kill them honestly i don't care about artfulness i care about true and what i want to know is that the police refused to do anything or not i would i would argue that the police refused do anything by not taking any action in response to a credible threat on a specific idea no they didn't take any action and how can you say they refuse i mean usually when the police are doing something they're they're not we always we thank everyone for coming to paired however we always like to thank people that are willing to do pro bono work in cases because it makes it easier for the court to decide be difficult legal issues thank you for doing submitted as the time thank you