your well i don't that she had a well founded fear that she would suffer future persecution if she were to return anywhere in mexico so he's going to stylish the fear is he just persecution here where she wasn't exported compel the conclusion that she would be subject to future persecution why are we compelled to find at that t y got it wrong when there is no evidence that she herself was  situated isn't bad a lidy perhaps the crucial question that is in these other cases the bell rings th day adventists  family social group had common characteristics that persecutors could go after here it appears that for whatever reason they thought correctly that there was money in the family and that if they kidnapped these particular people d they would get some of but whether because they didn't kidnap women as opposed to d because you've all got money then i wouldn't go with you a lot more where is here they went after people that they were able to get money from and at least as far as we or has cited to a number of cases to support the proposition that harm fifty years family members or friends could support a claim of her own past persecution and i want to clarify what the law says about that it is true there are some cases where the harmed fish or stanley does factor into whether or not the individual has established persecution but there are other cases where the where the out looking for leave has been women members that are armed and it doesn't speak to whether or not they have had persecution example that would be cited in a review of current case where the three were the applicants grandfather had been murdered but they have still been found to not establish past persecution so i want to clarify that for the court where the court has drawn the line if you take a look petition or a message to cause the petition or emotional harm or as part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to the fish and that's why the board here found that pictures of herself had not established as persecution because if you take a close look at  claim it becomes clear that she was not closely tied to ripping winners she claimed the hill was motivated to harm her family members because of their p s business she expressed least in their family was not an enemy of the cartel and wh why do you think the cartel tourney venom enters she said i think it was because of the business know when she was questioned about her association with the business she clarified that she had no ownership ties with a business the business had originally been her father's and her brothers had carried on the business but she handlers a touch of the business and she did not work in the business she was not working at all she had been supported by her romantic partner for of asensio so the board an immigration judge in this case reasonably in all its stores and to some extent is done with the purpose of trying to intimidate in other words maybe send a message to the victim so that you store money so when i think the court is talk about sending a message i don't think it has to do with the ordinary sort of intimidating is in order to be the nexus requirement it's more you have to show more than that the perpetrator of the harm knows you have a characteristic you have to show the care they have a characteristic we call the nexus requirement but what it really is is a very often we see claims where people are applying for relief from countries that are suffering from the scourge of cartel violence or sometimes it's game violence and the common theme through many of these cases that pervades these cases is th potential you know example on one side of it some saw the case because it's colorful the father in law was held but not all but not enough cartel adepts and the whole family was being held liable for his death and so the connection was quite strong so i was just the potentially distinguishing that from simply going after people who might have some money well that's true but i certainly think that there that seems to be a logical extension of the claim that she was making that the cartel was interested in the business she didn't have any ties to that is so it shouldn't really be surprising in this case the cartel never threatened her or never  and forty four dollars of the record immigration judge noted that she was claiming that she couldn't relocate because she would have difficulty finding work well st of all difficulty finding work is not the same thing as not being able to safely relocate r difficulties and you know difficult to find work isn't isn't a problem that is you know insignificant but in terms of being able to safely relocate it does really informed that analysis and the original also pointed out that she was in to successfully relocate from mexico to the united states so it really rebutted the notion that she wouldn't be able to relocate because of the inability to find work or something along those lines no as far as the immigration judges determination that petitioner could relocate to an area outside where the zetas were operating i think was happen from india but it's a that was pacific enough to identify here one person can go to and that's very similar to what the immigration service did here which say out any area in mexico outside where the zetas were controlling and in fact this case the immigration judge anything about that is that fair yes as an accurate statement of the six but i understood that as the sequence contact of the wife wife brings in the sister in law she is