st we do believe that there is evidence of the nexus between the social group and the persecution part of the problem is that we believe that the lower courts applied the wrong legal standard of applying the asylum standard for determining the nexus of focusing on his own a central reason we believe that the focus should have been on a reason which would have been the family reason as well as other reasons which were the monetary reasons for the saying that the fact of the persecution is self is also evidence of the next in that case are very similar to the facts in our case well not exactly but they are very similar you have both cases where they start off with for another reason or other then those are the basis for the persecution for the son for their own to take the ground so the end they both actually start off with monetary reasons and then they start to escalate from merrill was focused on the one person and escalation of violence and persecution against that one person so that's where it kind of differs from our case but still there's judge i think we do lose i would agree with that i think that that is  y don't agree with that because it's not it's not a required issue situation in the reporting to the government it's a way in of all the facts or circumstances of the case to determine whether the government was could have should have been aware of what was going on and again in this case i mean we have the years of persecution we have i mean i think central to our thesis of the murders that there were i think murders related to family and the fact that the government should have been also evidence regarding to my point regarding the fact of police corruption and the fact that they strongly don't do one thing i believe there's also in the particle credible fear interview you off sure there makes a find standard that requires my i believe a valuation d of four factors basically to the nature of the evidence the reasonable in this of the petitioners actions the inconvenience of the board and the number of continuances previously granted in this case it's my belief that the court just basically focus on the number of continuances in the span of time the two years or more that the case spans instead of focusing on those four   days before the hearing the judge could have easily reviewed that and again that could have established a better record i mean i think ideally the continuance would have been better in establishing a better record but at least looking over those those relatively so small amount  this case simply is all about money it's on related to family clan those on the lam machine it doesn't really matter if the court hear of the board excuse me here misstated the burden of proof remand is unnecessary because distinction and i'm i'm wondering if it's implied in this case that the petitioner in that case simply said that he was against corrupt police officers and that w expressed any opposition like the facts and bras there is no evidence that the gang for example on one hundred and thirty four broke into his house identified his family and said you know what this is this is is it's horrible i agree with you there tragic and i'm sympathetic to mr chinchilla for it but he admitted on page three hundred and forty four the record that this is the product of a particularly violent area of guatemala and however emotionally drawing it is that it's an extensive amount of his family members were killed they were all killed for money and that doesn't establish the requisite nex were killed because they refused to pay pay the gang members money but aside from that well we represent was there any evidence that they were they maintained a business or you know farms or are  business selling corn and on the night that there was the intrusion into the house there was some insinuation that the assailants knew his father sold corn for cash and target him for the fact that he had cash on hand so in terms of its relevancy as a business person it's relevant to the money it goes to show that the the persecutors were bot th he filed his notice of appearance but did not file in a continuance motion he could have at the same simultaneously with the notice of the parents but did not on page twenty three of the record he blames his client for not providing the requisite documents in a timely fashion but interestingly that conflicts with page one hundred and fifty six of the record where he blamed the prior attorney in so there was never a continuance filed at the same time he filed his appearance and there was never to date any ineffective assistance of counsel claim ever filed by them or on page one hundred and forty five dollars of the record at the beginning of  he simply does not connect the dots that he was prejudiced that there was any connection for the from the evidence that was excluded a specific portion of the evidence that was excluded that would somehow change the motivations for money based to family based he doesn't cite any specific piece of evidence to connect the dots to stablish that requisite prejudice component so in this particular case the the