i'm glad to hear that the clerk has already put the new attorney general into the  thank you your honor for one housekeeping matter apparently today i noticed a couple of typographical errors in my brief putting a case citation that was incorrect in the table of authorities always embarrassed find such things i do apologize for any inconvenience caused by those torture they seek to terminate removal because a defective notice of the two year of recession standard of oh i will acknowledge that is the weaker of my arguments today not abandoning that argument of course but it is the political opinion and show a nexus between the protect status and the persecution this court in laos be barred which as of the writing of my brief was not formally reported it is now were ordered pay we will kill you followed by her fleeing the country and the law doesn't matter involved honduras just just as a matter matter before the court this appellate also testified that there was nowhere she felt as persecution they said there is no nexus between the claim particular social group of the nuclear family and the threats here and you want to address that so the nexus if you're right that that is the  disagreement and they also but there's also the political element of it so in laos that this is just failure to pay is a political act not simply a refusal to pay a debt so she had the additional element of being a single parent which is not present in the matter here but the fact in law goes to failure to pay followed by additional threats i think was very very important in addition in this case the appellant contacted the police followed by further threats from the from the extortionist so i think that is it is the the money right yes and oh ok so let me just ask you i understood the agency to be suggesting that maybe there was no evidence of any causal link there because you know he's been doing it for eleven years before they  threatened her and things like that so maybe it was just a coincidence what's your response to that what's the best record evidence that there is a causal link care the rest directed the evidence is that the threats into the appellant's to her daughter because of her connection to her to the husband who was here in the states so it was targeted to her based on the husband being here yes the it and what do we do what did your client say at the hearing this is something the agency talked about a lot did your client safety hearing that she didn't know why she was being targeted and if so how do we handle how would you handle that she did say she did not know and the answer is she doesn't how could you possibly know the intent of another unless of course they you know if they if they had common said we are targeting you because you know we don't like people of your at this itty that would be direct but where do we ever have that you could be able i thought they could and it did come to her and say we're targeting you because we know you get money from your husband in america yes they did ok and but that that before but in addition she has a refusal to pay which is a political act and after x asserting that political opinion i'm not going to pay you further threats so the nexus there between the threats and her political opinion is there to answer your question your honor on it did you resist political opinion issued before the agency because it didn't seem like you did but if you can tell me where you raised at trial council asserted the  the that is sort of the convention against torture and asserted the argument that she was the facts so the facts of the threats the reports the police  and the subsequent threats those are the facts on the line the political act of a that i'm talking about here i don't i do not believe that it was expressly asserted as a political i believe my distinguished counsel for the government may disagree with me on that point but that is that is certainly my position and also and also you have to get them you don't really have to give them a fair shot at it to preserve it right  its thread going through some of the arguments if you let this satisfy the requirements then the opened up the floodgates and i don't think that's an appropriate basis to make a ruling i think that we need to look at that and i think the leave when you go back to your seat i don't know what kind of technology you're there are you relying on this law goes case and you do have a serious waiver problem take on the political opinion aspect of it but that nexus issue yes yes absolutely they want it sure thing the court should deny the petition preview in this particular case there is nothing particular about the petitioners family here that led the gang members to target the biggest or the petitioners husband did give her money and the gang members knew about it and the gang members wanted that money but at the end of the day this comes down to the substantial evidence standard and the record doesn't compel the conclusion that the reason why the gang members targeted the petitioner in this case was on account of her marital relationship but so our if you are you familiar with  targeting the titian or herself and not some other person that there seems to be a lot of connectivity between that case and this case how do you how do you view that case in terms of the influence on this still to address and we buy that evidence that compel the conclusion that family was at least essential reason why the petitioner was targeted in that case and in the present case the evidence simply monetary gain and therefore her ability to pay or so to speak for the court went on a safe is it isn't enough that the protective ground be at least one of the reasons for the persecution and here she's a widespread that there there was not there was not something about her family in particular that led the gang members to single her out and moreover aren't that conclusion that was reached by the agent she was receiving if found that so if they if if if if that was the but for what reason for her st you should doesn't that by definition satisfy that was central reason spend grounded in their desire to rich themselves and not grounded in any particular animas toward her family i mean i think the fact that now until the bitter tears i feel like we have rejected that particular proposition just over and over again that there doesn't need to be animists against the family as a family it's the family relationship to explain why of all the people they could have targeted out of greed and in order to enrich themselves they picked this person and i just i guess i have basically the same question and judge when so maybe it's not helpful to think of as good again but it undergoes you know the standard we have laid it out so many times now you know once the i j a says yeah like but for the relationship with her husband looks would not have happened i am sort of struggling with how that doesn't dispose of the case a mix of crimes i mean there's a lot of other stuff going right right i think that again it comes down to the fact that the petitioner was chosen because she has money doesn't necessarily mean she was chosen because of her marital relationship that money could have co that that is definitely possible that there can be more than one motive but it at bottom when the petitioner herself has said that she was unsure why her family was chosen and when other people who were not her family were also targeted and in addition there is evidence that members of her family besides her were not targeted it was a reasonable conclusion for the immigration judge on the board to look at that evidence and conclude that there wasn't a motive on the part of the gang members to target her on the basis of her family member shit but what if they get different accounts of what i mean one thing that we talked about in her native curry pigeon and some other cases is that you know the fact that the money is coming from a relative allows the gang to sort of leverage that release and ship it to sure stream of income if it's coming from someone who will be very sad if they get in killed the woman and hurt his and her daughter so it's there to leave then why the family relationship would factory you know what kind of intertwined with the with the financial desires in a case like that because you can leverage the family relationship to keep the money coming i think that it's possible that th at that may be the case i don't know that in this particular case there's evidence that the gang members were motivated by her family in how way well then why did they tell her when to vary the i take credit  they come to her they say out loud what your colleague said is so on unusual that someone will actually say exactly what's on their mind in the middle of an extortion threat they say like we're here because we know about your husband and we know he's sending you money i mean doesn't that sort of indicate that this is part of the motive in this case why else mention it just like a pleasantry well i think that the that again it comes down to the substantial evidence and standard and whether  the record compels the conclusion that family was the motivating factor or was a motivating factor for the gang members when if she had been getting that money from a charity or a trust account or an employer the gang members arguably would have been just as motivated to target her but the fact is that she got the money for her husband and they knew it seems the record makes clear that they were aware of the payments that were being made by her husband to her yes that is that is an accurate and  and i mean i think our response would just be that that again the the record supports the conclusion that the agency restrictions that the marital relationship wasn't the basis for the gang members interest  safe to say the opposite i mean i think in this particular case the the board's decision here turns and the issue of nexus and and not whether or not the threats rose to the level of persecution i think when the board sat in this is on page five of the record i think when the board said that economic extortion is not a recognized for of persecution what they were referring to is that if it were economic expression purely and there were no protected ground implicated then that would be insufficient to qualify as persecution but apart from that i don't i don't think those kids turned on an insufficient past persecution finding i think that the board assumed without deciding that the social group  and then turned to the issue of whether or not there was a nexus in this case camp i read the opinion the same way that can i just ask you in terms of the threat see i can see lots of different possible outcomes to this case if the court were to to see to remain and and it's it's hard to know you know whether the petitioner m introduces additional facts whether the board might further remand the immigration judge it's hard hard to know what arguments would be made down the road on that and i'm not familiar persecution if i can turn to the convention against torture claim that we just reiterate that that claim was an exhausted as it was not raised properly before the board and further with respect is challenge to the sufficiency of the notice to appear that is foreclosed by this court's decision in the united states versus cortez and as for the one that was raised during petitioners immigration proceedings or in her appeal to the board and we we would respectfully argue that waiver on from that point threat similarly here it is the family that's being targeted and i think that the combination of the hernandez cut daniel matter and the law ghost matter is the law that really should trick control here i well i'm not conceding the pereira argument i think that is my weaker argument and i believe on the commission against quarter issue that leaves the facts and were raised below and the convention against torture was noted in the in the brief respond thank you very much thank you and i appreciate the courtesy of you and your staff in organizing their remote appearances your staff has been very very helpful thanks again