not protect mr hooper from this likely base in part because the bill is in jail for a crime that involved the killing of a police officer and because of rampant corruption within the salvatore government yet the board of immigration mis application of the one central reason standard and nd it's prejudicial omission and this characterization of material evidence of that you eighteen's motives for targeting mr  ways st be a concerted impermissible fact finding in concluding that the people truly a family was not socially distinct under the new and more stringent legal standard established opportunity to present additional evidence to meet such a new standard the government's silence with respect to these errors speaks volumes each of these prejudicial errors warrants frema what is the evidence that he was prosecuted when he was there before we entered your honor the evidence that he was persecuted includes the evidence of that the death threats and in prior cases such as mansour versus the u s department of homeland security death threats and other forms of non physical torture or not i'm sorry non physical threats are  about the the convention against torture claim you you would concede that when he was when he was returned last time before he illegally reentered this time  now then last time well the evidence that he would be more likely to be tortured now is that there are there's evidence that the police would know that he is the brother of a convicted gang member a person who was involved in the crime of a police officer because of the welcome home program and that was not in effect the last time that mr hoover was r so now he'll be more highlighted for extrajudicial killings and that's only one piece of evidence there's also the continuing threat of animist toward mr hoover and because of his relationship to his brother  st with respect to the withholding of removal cream mr rubio testified that he did not know the nature of his brother's dispute with barrio eighteen he said that the barrio eighteen members told him that he needed to pay his brother's debt and he did not know anything about what that was or what it could be he didn't like to talk about it he didn't like to ask us brother about it so he didn't know m previous testimony doesn't compel that conclusion it's certainly one possible reading of the situation but it's the record doesn't compel that conclusion and because it's a factual finding that's the standard of review you need to meet in order to prevail which indicates that they were also considering that other motives may have been at play including the family motive and deciding that they were not sufficiently central to carry weight teams motivation and thus denying th with respect to the pac claim mr rubio arguers that he's established acquiescence but nowhere in his race does he dispute the agency's determination that he did not show a clear probability of torture upon return the  acquiescence is as as a different standard than the unable or unwilling to protect standard that is relevant in the asylum withholding context and as this court ruled in scarlet just a couple months ago those are different discusses in the top part of her opinion a lot of the evidence in the record and she states that she considered all the evidence in the record in making the decision whether she explicitly mentions it or not but she does not cite any specific evidence in the animals as section but she ruled gang logic it makes sense that the batter eighteen's motivations were because of their relationship to a person with whom they had a score to settle further court also m characterize the claim here we're speaking about the threats from bobby eighteen but eighteen never requested money in specific amounts and many and in many instances never mentioned money at all  the petitioner didn't submit evidence with respect to the government's likely after yes and is inaccurate your honor because the testimony of professor hallett also spoke about the likelihood of and there were numerous reports in articles that were omitted which such a mission failure to contribute to consider the evidence the likely threat of torture is contrary to the requirements of the c f r which the fact that the i j a that the aging mentioned that she considered the evidence doesn't make it so so in both both the nexus element and this element there is gross emission of bad events which is an