e seven one five one zero the b i when it's made this decision in this case did not actually have be the benefit of the course decision of this particular course decision in history cases reversed versus holder which made significant rulings with regards to defining a particular social group when the b i made a decision which was in may of two thousand and twelve and that with regards to define the particular social group the petition in this particular case the board of immigration of appeals stated that he was part of what's the particular social group here more business owners or for people with money or one was the family was advanced family relationship and the second one was a business owner those were the two groups that were advance whether it would be the difference between a business owner and somebody who just sold his business for a lot of money for his or her business for money when they be in the same pickle a business owner someone who sold their business for a lot of so he's no longer business i don't i don't think that i guess it would depend on least in this particular case as defined by the court it would be depend on the perception of that particular society or the perception of the actual  persecutor if the persecutors perception of someone who actually owns a business is the person that they're targeting that would be a particular social group and then someone who actually sold their business i guess it would depend again the family royston ships or or business ownership i don't think that is necessary i think that they were targeted although they the the source of the money was from the business i don't think it's an issue of necessarily the fact that he had money but i believe that it was related to the fact that the source of him being an employee connected to that particular business i believe that that made him the target not necessarily the fact that he had the money and i do believe that there were also additional reports that were received in declarations that were submitted in the immigration court which was also reviewed by the b i a that would suggest that there were the business was actually people that were connected to that business were actually the ones that were being targeted by think that again when the b i was doing this analysis it talked about social visibility and again at that particular time it my position and you know i think those were significant changes they were not analyzed that way and i believe in the decision that was written it was they used the terms on site visibility  however of course at that particular time we know that on site visibility and so in certain cases were seen as the social visibility i'm sorry were seen as on site visibility that you appear a certain way as opposed to the perception of both the persecutor and the society and you know with regards to pursue particular social group you do in reserve good morning may it please the court i'm sara byrom appearing on behalf of the united states attorney general with respect to this case the government believes of special this is nexus and petitioners failure to challenge next us in our the gangs robbed him because they believe that he's possessed money and valuables not that he was a member of a particular social group he in the record his social group a son of a merchant or business owner and there's there's understand your your argument correctly you're saying even if the new case changes the landscape who would is or what is not a social group even if he is in a social group there was no there was no nexus to his being in the this case social group yes well i can't speak for the board because they don't have the benefit of these decisions i can only speculate i don't think that it would change the board to discuss it at all no we're not asking you to speculate where we're doing the problem is your nexus argument depends on how you define the social group right because such a group is if the definition of social group embraces say employees of a particular company or something if it could be articulate in such a way and it's a new case then the nex us argument asa changes right nexus is dependent on how you define the social group it can be but here the the next and the pet it can be yes but in this case the social group regardless of how it may come out on remand if the board considered it again there's no there's no nexus no evidence that no matter what the social group wants on a business owner even if the social group the board might hold to be legally cognize will now petition or haven't shown any evidence that the gangs targeted him because he was the son of a business owner and there was some sort of animosity or hostility towards that yes suppose the social group under the new case i'm just thinking out loud suppose the social group is defined as rich people in el salvador there's no question that he was targeted because he's a rich person and all salva came out after the reading the court did order supplemental briefing in this case whether or not this case should be remanded for those new cases and the government in its supplemental freak out that time argued that the court would not reach we can argue waiver in the case that changes the law comes out after the race is filed you know that i do know that ok i do know that in the supplemental brief we took the position group that while may our strategy may be that they're entirely distinct you know the board and have the benefit of those before it so  thank you i really don't have much more to to add to what i've spoken about earlier other than the fact that again i believe that the case law is significantly changed and i think that it would be unfair and appropriate remand to allow the board to have the benefit of considering the ruling of this court with regard to the