yes good morning your honour's jeremy laurance of monger tolls and also on behalf of in this case the petitioners daughter who is now thirteen years old received asylum from the immigration judge as part of these same proceedings and petitioner herself did not receive asylum or withholding of removal by the time  the proceeding for completed on single ground which was that the b i found that there was a lack of a nexus between the persecution and a statutorily protected ground and both on the particular social group aspect of petitioners claim and important on both points of particular social group imputed political opinion to recognize what i believe the government concedes in its brief which is that the cia did not apply the mixed motives framework when it considered  claim setting aside whatever might have happened at the immigration judge level the b i a as and again the government on page twenty five dollars of its brief and thirty four dollars of its brief i believe concedes that the b i did not apply to mixed motives analysis and i think that's that you're in is that the the so the term rather than it's compelling that they didn't apply the mixed mode of analysis that was that was our initial determination or conclusion that we've put forward in our opening brief but i really think it's the government's concession in their response that i think rather than having to parse and close read to be a decision here i think the parties are agreed that the b s a did not apply a mixed motives analysis now counsel help me here my understanding of that or to the argument though is if if the protected social group was no part of the vote then you don't have any mix and to me at least their argument if you would address that is that they wanted money and they had no notion of protected a look at that from the legal point of view as a way of defending the government but perhaps more strongly as a question of the nexus the proper next analysis is that a fact thank you your honor i think that that's both a legal and factual issue here and i think the fact aspect we're dealing with here and looking at the government's proposed legal test of is there any evidence whatsoever of a potential mixed motive i think we have it on page one hundred and forty five of the record where in partitioner is testimony the persecutors when they increased the demand of their making over and this is of course the precipitating event that led her to leave the country because she was at this point so frightened for her life when they increased their demand that's the st time they specifically referenced her daughter and friend her daughter and so in that respect they're specifically targeting at that point her status as a single mother in a unique way at that moment when they are  that why it is that i understand mother but isn't it sort of classic that extra workers of every variety of threaten people's children that is there's nothing in what you just read there would be any tempted status that's what takes it out of the rent realm of ordinary extortion where we wouldn't be granting asylum but when you know the order of protected status our our our position is that being a single mother in el salvador without a male protector is a protected status to be i did not address that so far as i was dealing with that except i mean i was giving you that for the moment of her testimony that you  to doesn't say well you must pay because you have no man you have a daughter and i'll threaten the daughter and i just said how is that different if there were a man or if it were a married woman but i think the context of el salvador where we have our expert thomas foreman and elizabeth kennedy talking about the status of males you know salvador and sort of the fact that it's understood in this culture and it went additional receiving these threats that her status as a single unmarried woman made her particularly vulnerable and the gang was using that as their basis for threatening her and i think it importantly the i j a used to made the finding that they the gang was leveraging using leverage and that's right that's my question counsel what i think is the the administrative record now it is obvious that the gang used to respond in status as an adult female who is living without a protective male in her household they use that fact to intimidate the respondent in an effort to control or is that enough for us to find that her protected status was at least one motive is if we view that as a factual using petitioners protected status to inflict harm upon her and when we view it that way it sounds awfully a lot like something that should warrant a mixed motives analysis but i think more important in this case precedence this court precedents we have the concept of escalation of threats and violence and the nexus can be found when there is an escalation that's based on an protected status even if the initial targeting wasn't on the basis of a protected status and this i think i would point you to the barajas romero case f administrative records that the gang is not going after this person because they are offensive in some way he is that is that in any way relevant to our analysis here  don't think we have to enquire into the gangs whether they favor or disfavor a group the fact is whether you're if you're being persecuted on the basis of your protected status setting aside the gang thinks that protected status is offensive or not i don't think that through going to be times including on page seventy eight said the gang targeted her for reasons independent of her protected status and i think it's the escalation that the i j a didn't consider and on page one hundred and forty five is where the escalation in the form of increasing the age to be a is decision where they characterize what the i j a as saying that they were motivated by a desire to achieve rather than a desire to overcome a protected characteristic i mean it strikes me that this is issuing mixed motive and going to completely buy narry analysis which i think under our case  specifically says that they were the petitioner has proven the gangs used her status as a female living without a protective male it isn't it isn't that enough as a fact finding well action i don't understand that council i mean they want to get money they always want to get money but if they choose to particularly target single males living going after her b because of a protected class that maybe i'm missing something here isn't nothing in the government's view that that doesn't count because ultimately what they want is money well  recipient of their threats easier to be more successful or in that all we need in this situation was my additional concern and i think the i j a did find it but my additional concern is that it appears to me from this quote on page seventy there what the i g one of the reasons the i j a was rejecting the petitioners claim was that when she the i just as using someone status as a means of leverage is different than gag and petitioner can't win even if they were targeting her because she was a single female and that may have led the i j a in some way astray you would agree that whether or not the gangs thought women are offensive or single mothers are offensive is irrelevant to our analysis right control its territory and to be transformed that aspect of the findings and focus only on money saying that it was affirming the conclusion of this i think is the motivation of control that plays into the computer political opinion claim