that the i a e a concluded that the harming your client experience was because of a desire to extort money and not because of a protected ground such as family member share or political opinion and i see you to respond to that and tell us why we are all to indicated that his father was killed a long time ago his uncle was killed a long time ago by the same gang members and mr two then his mom became part of the thread and there was a significant number of dead for it so she was forced to leave clear that we've got a family connection and it's clear that the gang using the family connection as we have extorting money but i'm not sure that it coincides with the definition of family group that the attorney general has given us  was even if you was given persecuted he was never been physically harmed family member was killed tortured or kidnapped the only reason he was attacked because the mexican cartel members approached the family and arrested that we supplemental brief the case the rios leach and this is a bald guatemalan gang that to black advantage they killed almost all the family members of the respondent they killed the father they killed the cousin and they made for him to kill the sister and he went back to the court as a family members have been a specific particular social group thank you thank you very much we'll hear now from the government would dispute that whoever you control interested not injured and you speak up a little bit please sure sorry you're on yes sir these were horrible events no reasonable person could dispute that however this is a case  demonstrated only for the general possibility of torture and quote and so he didn't meet the burden to show that he personally would be subjected to torture b the agency also credited his testimony as true and it seems to me that with the number of threats and the number of killings that including  n following him when he tried to move to get away from them that he indeed showed personal information that he would be tortured that is killed  so that the agency never went on to examine the nd prong which is is that something that's done with the government's acquiescence or clubs as a patient but i don't understand how we that they're looking only at the evidence that general possibility of torture and seems to me that the record does compel a finding that he provided more been a general possibility of torture yeah it was very specific as him so i don't understand how that summary by the b i a e a is supported by substantial evidence and i would only say your honor that in this case made a good earlier decision the knowledge that other evidence the red sox era i don't think they were lying to it we certainly seen some were decisions where there's no mention whatsoever of the petitioners claims and that can be a problem mine and then later she says well because they were talking about the gang members they realized that i was here and they thought i had a lot of money and that's what i think and that's why they started bothering mr meadows oppressed i think this testimony noun i got i'd like to pursue the ilya a case on whether it controls or to what degree it might be thought to control here we heard a distinction which i think is true on the facts that in l e a the petition was pressured to sell drugs in the family store and i'm not sure that they were using him as leverage on somebody else within the family the underlying facts here are really quite different what we have here accomplish this am that's really a different set of facts from the facts and is there something in not just on the facts but in the way the b s a articulated standard for what constitutes social group of family that would control this case we're here because it hard case sisters case the agency did not reach carnegie's ability in the st instance which is why the court that informative for the agency however why it's important to talk about l e a right now is that it was a mixed motive case we don't have that here we have the agency decided there was a single cases not so much as actual comparisons intro's of the kitchener's differing experiences as a but rather in the states that the agency made in terms of how they analyze the claim