because of the mormons and i interrupt for just a minute right we we basically understand the narrative given by the son and the other what i'm interested in is what is the protected ground here is it a social group of family is it a would be used social group of landowners what are we talking about because not only do we have to have some threat of harm if we're talking about withholding we've got to find some connection some nexus to a protect this particular group are that there are very few people like them and on the border all of them are persecuted was connected to this land dispute that is to say no no nexus to family if that's the family nexus what do i do with them well there was testimony during the and told them to same day what happened to you three days later it or the two brothers were found dead so there is that specific threat being made by the cut to the family statement that th responsible for the death of the family members specifically because of the reluctance to say then then to the cartel for a very ridiculous amount of fifty thousand dollars when the land is worth ten million dollars or more in this particular case we have the protection on the path at the convention against torture we have a specific instances of the police intervention directly with the well there are no immediate family members they have any capacity to have or a ship the only family member is victoria who was the press and the present case who was sent back to mexico but is in hiding not because they had direct ownership or because they were being used and leverage against the person who doesn't own the land i guess i don't understand the distinction that you're trying to make between immediate family members  that is to say if it's only ten years and it was least into the end in two thousand and eleven is coming off lease would not and i mean that we've got a more immediate threat because the owner or owners of it was passed to some degree to the to the kids as the s violence and the record reflects the cartel is not abated by property interests or more precisely desire to own his father's land and not that there is some kind of enemy is against the family per se because of that a reason but here is the record doesn't compel the conclusion that a protected ground is any abuse and so so to your point about his taking his testimony is true that he and other members of his family were targeted based on their family members have that's not born wanted and it was nothing to do with the family per se and that is if that is why it's not even a reason of calling well i guess i'm not totally sure i follow the distinction i mean the ultimate motive might be financial if already are economic but if an economic motive leave leaves the group of persecutors to decide that they're going to target the members of this family you know and if you ask them you know why why why if you ask them you know sort of in a cartel members and then the and when she comes back and says everybody's going to get killed mushy and over the wound i mean when there is evidence in the record that is on contradicted that we have serious threats to the family designed to be leveraged to sell the land grab there is that ends of that your honor but it doesn't automatically follow that have multiple family members are harassed that there is a protected social group clay it and say hey i'm getting you because i want the father does own the land that's crazy the only reason they're going after these people is because they're members of the family and that they will operate that as leverage on the people who are maybe just the father but maybe also the children who have the power to convey the way around and there's no there's no reason to go after a stranger they only go after the family members which is judge miller's point i'm not sure i fully understand your answer as to why that's not a matt as i read matter of billy a by the attorney general there's some nuance in terms of what family as a social group means would it be appropriate for us to send this back to have to give the agency doesn't because the fact that it might be a factor in that is taken into consideration doesn't mean that it's the motivation for the harm sufferer feared and i would be the government's main point here is that the as soon as i go after the wife saying give me the money does then turn it into a family group use well that turns into a family group is we've got an awful lot of family group cases i get that right  resent that and and that would be well you agree with that on the other hand this one is not just i want money and i'm going after the wife i want this is we want the land and we're going after a lot of the family members sure but again they're going after it even if they are going after a lot of family members or i mean they're still doing it for the land and they're not doing it because they're members of the family and so while that might be a way to get what they want it's not the reason rather not go in the argument i guess they are making because that's not the case here because it's not just that they want the land there is a reason to target these people because of their families that different kinds of analysis and then the two board decision so does the board have some procedure in place to try to rip related cases and make sure that the resolved consistent when they do all the proceedings are ongoing is my i would like to know if you have been a judge just address the issue of the ownership of land and the differences between that and the and the persecution of the individual and i think it is cartel comes over and says you you give me your land for fifty thousand dollars which is a ridiculous amount or i will do something to you essentially what they're saying is that they have to give up something there is culturally innate within them and that is the difference judging from where i think all the other matters because this is a patrimony that the family