gash there was an incident which alex and his father were refused to give money to a gang members as they entered the shop shortly afterwards big game encountered the family at a party and attempted to kidnap alex in other words one way of looking at is the way i think the government looked at it was these were all economic crimes and there were a series of economic crimes that the members of this family but that there's nothing here that suggests that  the members of this family if they were to walk the streets would be would be singled out because they are members of that family so there are there are other members of this family that are that remain in the country that are still  because of her family would you still have a different claim for the children because it seems an argument could be made that the persecution against them was because of their membership in the family even though the mother able to recover the children's claims in the fall within the same analysis of the mother's already you see some different analysis of the two children's claims plan for the mother and so we find there's no nexus to a membership in a family it's an economic crime do we have something different for the children because they file separate petitions i think that the children have a separate argument having i don't want to i don't think it's fair sometimes ask a question if one thinks is conclusive but if we've been if we conclude that still have two other claims and i seems like your answer is that for those two children the so the social group which they're being persecuted as young salvadorans that resist gang  persecution is that the social group we were using for them that's right and it looks like that would never raise more low i don't remember that bit of social for them persecution and that particular case manning had already left the country of persecution and you were already in the united states for three years whereas in this in this case the event that occurred happened a mere two months after  my friend's argument this morning might be excused for retaining to incorrect conclusions of regarding the standard of review that this court will apply st on the law that this question involves questions of  impression that this court refused to novo in nd that all of the facts the petitioners today must prove their assertions by a preponderance of the evidence even if that were true the united states would still prevail here but instead this court review involves settled night circuit president and the agency's factual findings here need only be supported by substantial evidence and so the petition for review should accordingly be denied if i may i'll is sometimes they say it is member said in a family other times they say it is those who are only members of both vasquez in the munoz family view whether they're going one way or the other the the argument doesn't hold on go away st of all there are members of both families as separate units that are not being targeted for violence and if you're just talking about those two are members of both families act that terrible things have happened to individuals who are only members of one family cuts against the idea that the that the group in question can be defined as a combination of the two families also to the extent idea of has not done is not characterized in terms where it would be thought of as a family that would be targeted as such and the agency's finding here that there is no nexus between the unfortunate events the conditions of living that in fact unfortunately a very large portion of their population but the but the petitioners here were being mistreated by criminals who were targeting shopkeepers or as was just said earlier this morning just people with money in their pocket not because they're part of some sort of cognizable social group beyond that the batista nerves have failed to demonstrate that they don't salvador government is unwilling to shortly before the mother here left the country and yet other instances when reports were made the police said that they were going to investigate and al salvador as as was shown in the record in the salvador is working to try to make progress in combating this crime and that they offered to investigate here other instances such as the kidnapping we know dead but the findings of the agency was that the kidnapping was in fact never report d beyond that as has already been mentioned is it can't be over emphasized in terms of looking at this as a group that other members of the family have been left unharmed and so at the heart of it in the harm harassment or unfulfilled threats if that beyond that that treatment even in severe instances that maltreatment of family members is generally speaking not a harm for it is not a substitute for the harm nothing in the record good st of all that not only have the injuries that have been suffered not rise to that level but also the stream bowel treatment must be caused either by a government officials agency found and now the agency's fashionable conclusion in that regard of course need only be supported by substantial evidence here it as as your auditors have noted it conditions in dallas salvador are rough there's no question about that but the government is working on these matters the evidence that was submitted in the proofs and submitted below a government ineffectiveness is not a substitute for acquiescence or for consent regarding the convention against torture so for all those reasons we would say that all the petitioners claims whether for a silo or for withholding the removal or for protection under the convention against torture  there is court present in this circuit that states that police reports are not required where they've shown that they're those are going to be ineffectual ineffective and so you know being told that they're going to open investigations doesn't really doesn't really persecuted because of their social group so they kept at the social group that you gave them but it is that there's no there's no evidence that that that this violence once was related to their membership in the social group and opposed to being general members of salvadoran society who appear to have have money they were shopkeepers they were down home a home industry they had kids who were carrying their lunch money  what why would they target the follow along i think that that that's the question of what i do we know that they targeted the father a lot because he was a member of the family as opposed to because they perceived that he had money those are two different those are two different things mccoy were these people persecuted because they were a vasquez or a munoz and i don't i don't i'm not sure i see where the evidence is or what the evidence is that the father in law was murdered because he bore that last name