asylum and withholding of removal as to both claims the record demonstrates the petitioners family group was at least one central reason for their persecution in fact although it is unnecessary for purposes of carrying a burden the record demonstrates that petitioners family group was the primary reason for their persecution after december th two thousand and five when the king richard one the other i'm going to focus on why next this is demonstrated on the record and i'll briefly touch on my position as were persecuted so importantly even if this court assumes i must thirteen was motivated in part or even primarily by extortion when it initially targeted in september of two thousand and five but still proved nexus because there is a clear shift in a mr t s motivation after the game whatsoever at any subsequent point nonetheless the gang immediately continued with its plan to kill each sibling one dollar by one and targeted and threaten the lives of the one at least three separate occasions after that point specifically on december relationships rd we know that family relationship was at least one central reason for the persecution because petitioner juan carlos was never once extorted at any point during this case despite this he still had his life threatened by the gang numerous times which caused him for example his own brother's funeral because he was afraid he's going to be killed and that's on a r three hundred and thirty three petitioners were not in are not afraid about being extorted by the game there is zero evidence of that on the record they are afraid is there something we would need to remain for her the proceedings your honor if this court finds that nexus as then we believe that this court can also decide persecution on behalf of it's based on the record or if this court chose to remain in the persecution aspect of this case back to the that would be proper because the did not in fact hold on persecution i j found that there was no persecution but the a sole the focus its opinion on nexus and so it did not even explicitly incorporate persecution is based on this court's precedent including numerous things such as threats of violence and death being enough just enough itself to show past st we believe our facts are much more egregious than just threats of violence there was actual murder that occurred as well as imminent threats of murder so we believe it would be proper for the court to hold as well on persecution those of virtue argument if you know of the remaining three children some level of of implicit financial motive however we believe that we would still meet the standard for at least one central reason because your honor even if the king was motivated in part by money family group just seems to be at least one central reason which is clearly meant in this next motive primary reason after the death became the family group but we also believe that the family group was at least one central reason for us the whole persecution beginning at september of two thousand i'm hot and with regard to persecution if i may there is no factual dispute here there are no factual issues for the i j a or to determine based on the evidence in the record and petitioners credible testimony past persecution and future persecution are clearly demonstrated here there is no dispute the petitioners brother was killed by the gang or the petitioners lives for threatened numerous times and there's no dispute as petitioners credible testimony that they fear being murdered by the gang if they are returned to guatemala and that's in numerous areas of persecution were extremely young they were thirteen and fifteen years old and on page six hundred and seventy four of the yoko opinion this court has held that a petitioner is young age at the time of an incident lowers the threshold to prove persecution and we believe that that remains on exhaust one way and that's whether they were persecuted by gang to their family even if their social worker although they also raises another particular social group they said they were guatemalan so refused and the board's decision that they weren't able to show a nexus between their proposed social group which is their family knew her family and the mistreatment by the extortion threats and the ok so why shouldn't we remained on the asylum claim to it's i don't read the order below as necessarily excluding the possibility that the family read this record entirely convinced that the agency found that that the family group persecution alleges fairly clear of persecution was not one of the reasons or for the for the for the persecution it occurred it uses rather strange language it's as central reason was extorting and we've recognised there back for a finding about whether it was also one of the central reasons why why should or you know as in terms of judicial economy what do we what are we serving by trying to separate the issues  not yet been decided ok so so now that you've turned down my invitation to do this the easy way let's do it the hard way or defend the board's holding on asylum recognizing that our case law says there can be more than one central reason for persecution you can you can you tell me that the board has found that there that the family group was not a central reason or whether there were there wasn't differently there's the there's the board ever say the family group membership was not a central reason or is that where you're inferring from their language no it's on i'm with you on that point i think the question is squarely presented in the next paragraph the board even says there's insufficient reason that the brother was killed because a family member ship but the question is clearly presented well there's my question is from our home the fact that the gang is interested in starting money doesn't mean that there was not another central reason that family social group wasn't the nexus because they're not threatening somebody extorted that's entirely irrelevant how's that you know let me finish that's entirely irrelevant if threats to family members don't don't you don't count because they're not family members friends again they gang would have gone after them the gang goes out the record shows an expert testified the gang taxes anybody that has money so the russian ship is completely secondary here it is minor it is t the just that of pure violence there was no further extortion demands no attempt to get money from the teenagers i gather that that's really the point on which you defer with your opponent that you think that there were there is evidence that an opposite conclusion can i can i were focused on this kind of yes q there's a difference between juan carlos and pedro was targeted from the outset for extortion as i understand it  carlos only got threatened after his family refused to pay he never personally refused to pay isn't there a stronger argument in his case that the that the  carlos was only extorted after some refusals to pay from the family isn't that a stronger nexus to the family then perhaps those who are extorted from the outset well you're o was threatened was because his family refused to pay with respect to pedro jose he was threatened because he refused to pay correct correct or so it isn't that a much relief granting petitioners petition in its entirety or finding next in favor additions and remaining the issue of persecution that the record demonstrates the family group was at least one central reason for petitioners persecution and certainly a reason for persecution  demonstrated but does it compel that conclusion that's that's the government's argument the government's argument is that maybe a fiber of fact could have found that it was a social reason that the finder of fact could have found on this record that is compelled that at least one central reason was the family group and further i'd like to know this court can review it on de novo and i know counsel touched on that so i'd like to put aside how we can review it for a  which that way of stating that family group was not at least one central reason but then this court can review it and find it was an incorrect determination which we believe it is clearly on the record even if the game was assuming that the grandmother was not threatened there is no evidence one way or the other which cannot even be upheld under substantial evidence standard further even if the grandmother was not threatened by the games the government has not met its burden under almost  and nineteen of that opinion show that these family members were similarly situated but this grandmother was similarly situated did not find that they were similarly situated with regard to the family and the grandmother the case is the government relies on its briefing including santa all have clear findings on the record a petition is relative in this case the grandmother was similarly situated that is not the case here i'd also like to touch on one other point the council made with regard to prevalence of gang violence the government also argued that the prevalence of gang violence in guatemala should prevent a finding that fits a family was targeted on account of its family group the government cannot say to any case a lot of activists argument because it cuts