subjected to months of frequent threats of verbal abuse the throwing of rocks and violence which culminated in his witnessing the brutal massacre of his close family members there is no dispute that mr  controlling case law as a particular social group the issue here is whether substantial evidence would have compelled the conclusion that mr k brought it was eligible for asylum and withholding of removal and whether the correct standard was applied both the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals applied the wrong standard and they also disregarded substantial evidence in the record pointing to direct harm to mr  mixed motive on the part of his persecutors and to the relationship between his family group and the persecution he suffered we said in order requesting the parties to address rawest romero and how do you respond to the government's argument with regard to number one whether the proper standard was applied and number two if the wrong standard was why which is which i think it and why isn't it harmless error well as the government concedes in no two of its supplement a letter brief where the evidence shows that the persecutor was or will be motivated not only by a protected characteristic but another non protected motive as well or the protected ground motive in another non protected motive may be intertwined the agency cannot stop at the basic motive requirement it must conduct a mixed motive analysis and here there is substantial in the record pointing to a mixed motive the immigration judge disregarded the evidence of direct harm to mr cooper out on his siblings only focusing on the motivations of the persecution of his uncle and the board of immigration appeals also disregarded that direct evidence and selectively quoted from a newspaper article saying that the land dispute was a contributing factor i'm looking at page two hundred fifty eight of the record the board disregarded language in that same article that talked about the family tensions are rising from another dispute and implying that the land dispute may have been a symptom rather than the cause of the tensions within the family so there was substantial evidence here of a mixed motive  finding of that there was no substantial evidence that there would be future prosecut if you're asking whether there was a finding that there was no nexus whatsoever there there was no finding to that effect the finding of the immigration judge was well he first applied the one central reason standard and analyzed the nexus only under that standard without discussing the multiple motives at play and he also found that the he didn't analyze the family group he said that the the persecution of the family had to also be on account of protected ground so his holding is quite confusing and erroneous in that regard the board of immigration appeals  also just pointed to the land dispute but didn't conduct an analysis of the mixed motives here dissidents here question well i'm not sure but it may be my confusion the the if there was no reasonable likelihood of future persecution the fact was a matter that they made the wrong analysis on past persecution because the finding of past persecution in titles m family continued to live in the area but didn't apply the two grounds which the under which the government could have are but at the presumption which are whether it would be reasonable for mr carr brother to relocate and whether there had been changed we would argue that there has been no change in country conditions all of the adult persecutors remain at large the land continues to be abandoned and to the family group relationship still exists the only family members who were apprehended by authorities were the very elderly grandfather and two teenage girls so all the adult persecutors remain at large in mexico and as to relocation mr corrado has lived in united states since he was fourteen he testified to the fact that the only reason his family remains in their hometown is because they don't have anywhere else to go so we would argue that his lack of economic resources and ties in other parts of mexico would make relocation  reasonable and that would be the standard that would be reply applied to rebut the presumption if you want to save the rest of your time yes thank you agency considered all of the evidence and all of the assorted claims and found the sole motivation for the incident was a dispute over land a personal dispute over who owned land and access to a well that is the basic there needs to be a basic motive requirement for asylum there has to be harm on account of a protected ground and here the agency found that none of the instance that happened were on account of a protected ground but were soley because of this dispute over land and that finding is supported by substantial evidence for example in mr carrados asylum application he states that his grandfather killed his uncle because of a land dispute in his declaration he said the fight started because juan the grandfather wanted the land that is lived on he continued they argued about who owned the land and fought over access to it well in the newspaper article it said the dispute was over land and that grandfather they prohibited each other from using the same water outlet it continued that one stated the grandfather stated that his motive of the aggression was due to a dispute over a piece of land what about the fact that the petitioner family had no stake in the land was in this a dispute between other family members this was a personal dispute between the grandfather in the uncle and to the extent other people were involved on one side of who owned the land versus the other that was still a right they were targeted because of that refusal is that is that a fair reading of the record it's a fair reading that petitioners father was approached and by the grandfather and people who were on the grandfather's side neighbor who was there in proximity to the land and the well there's no indication that well the substantial evidence doesn't support the finding that the father was only targeted because of a familial relationship the fact that was wasn't because different family members were taking sides and his father refused to take sides that's right unlike a neighbor who would have no familial connection to the family this is in family dispute where people being asked to take sides and they refused to do so was what caused the persecution that that's my reading of the record why isn't that correct is a subtle point that because they are  related yes this is a whole family of people and there is a relation but that familial relationship is not what drove the dispute or the approaching of petitioner's father to take sides what drove that was wanting people to support one side of a dispute versus the other it they were not targeted because of the familial relationship and particularly the petitioner did not witness the murders and to the extent he testified that some of his uncles or  grandfather when drinking would sometimes yell at them or throw rocks that still doesn't show that that's because of a familial relationship but because you know they need in the record that were being asked to take sides it's my understanding that this particular area where the family lived was mostly all if not all family just living in this one area so i don't know that there were other people not related but again just because there is a familial relationship doesn't mean that that was the reason for any harm and you have to separate the nexus finding requires the persecutor know of and be motivated to harm someone because of the protective ground and here the motivation for this entire incident and for asking people to take sides was to acquire this land and have access to the well and the record supports that finding and the standard of review here means that even if this court disagrees or is persuaded that there might have been some other reason that's not enough this court have to be compelled to conclude that the agency was wrong in finding this was a single motive case involving a personal dispute over land and was no harm it was directed at anyone on account of a protect here there is no lack of reasoning the immigration judge considered all of the evidence and the argument that family that they were related in that family may have played a role but the agency found here that there the evidence only supported th single motive of personal dispute over land so this was not the agency did not see this as a mixed motives case they found that considering all of the evidence in the record this was a single motive case about a personal dispute over land and the fact that these people were related does not make this suddenly a nexus on account of case again they could be neighbors this you know and even when the grandfather attacked the uncle and the uncle family who were present in the home at the time were also attacked again because they were there perhaps they didn't want witnesses there was a sort of rage mob mentality at that point but also five young girls ran out and were not chased after and were not injured during that dispute another son older son of the uncle was living in another part of the country working and government position i believe and he was not harmed this the uncle was attacked because of the disagreement over the land and the well and the people who happened to be in the home at the time were also harmed but not there's no evidence to support the fact that they were harmed because of their relationship it could simply be because they were there  and again this court would have to be compelled to conclude that there was another motive besides the personal dispute over the land and the record just doesn't compel that conclusion additionally substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that mr heraldo failed to establish extraordinary circumstances well he didn't trouble that he for his untimely asylum application that he had a legal disability up until he turned eighteen but substantial evidence supports a finding that he did not file as asylum application within a reasonable time period after that or that there were any changed circumstances in mexico that materially affected his asylum you thank you i would just like to reiterate your honor's point that the there is no evidence in the record pointing to persecution of anyone outside of the family and there's no requirement that i'm aware of that every single member of a particular social group must be harmed or took or killed in order to satisfy the requirements for either asylum or withholding of remov just the fact that other family members remain unharmed such as any error in the failure to apply the proper test is harmless the fact that other family members remain in the area we would argue that the entire family was harmed by the loss of their family members and the case like consistently shows that particularly from a child's point of view with the loss of family members is a direct harm in jorge to soak one of the cases we cited in our brief the harm to family members took place in a different town and was still found to be direct harm to the petitioner in that case but the fact that that only some of the family members were harmed and that they continued to live in the area might be used by the government to to argue that there have been a change in circumstances that now allows them to be safe but it doesn't go to the issue of whether there was past persecution in this case whether there was past persecution  depends on whether the harm suffered by the petitioner rises to the level of persecution or whether that harm was on account of or because of a protected ground what do you make of the discussion of and two again i don't believe that that finding goes to the question of whether there was past persecution here the persecution suffered by mr kay broad zero zero included all of the events leading up to that and the courts to the well founded fear future persecution which is what my question was directed at yes but again once the past persecution has been established then there's a different test applied and it's no longer requirement that he show either a well founded fear or that it's more likely than not that he'll be persecuted the relevant question is whether the government can reason about that presumption by either chuck showing a change in circumstances or reasonable relocation so if i understand also i mean i think there is in the record a basis on which a reasonable fact finder could have inferred that the government had met its burden of showing that there was no likelihood of future persecution but in fact there was never any finding to that effect  again it is the government's burden to rebut that presumption mr carrados suffered extensive harm as a small child and continues to fear returning to his country and he deserves to have his case fully heard in court and the correct standard