petitioner as the immigration judge quoted out in her decision and central america extortion is the lifeblood of criminal gangs like i messed the team it's widespread and it is systematic but it's not random and must thirteen as described in the record as cold and calculating and strategic in choosing its targets and also in deciding how much money to demand f without a doubt i met thirteen bases its decisions about who to target and how much money to demand on its perception of the potential of the target's vulnerability and willingness to pay if you look at page three hundred and thirty seven for example that describes how m s thirteen's demands vary based on the victim's percy income that says that perhaps a single woman with three kids selling tortillas might be expected to pay fifteen dollars a week while a taxi driver with a wife and two kids might expect to pay one hundred dollars but in this case m s thirteen demanded a huge sum of money the equivalent of thirteen thousand dollars and ms velzquez she didn't question the gang's demand for the money she question the amount if you look at page one  demanded this money said to her in a very disrespectful way she says he said yes you can you have family in the united states and therefore you are able to pay now in front of the immigration judge we argued that ms alaska's belonged to a particular social group guatemalan women who have close family living abroad  and the board of immigration appeals at least on appeal it accepted that as a cognized social group but nevertheless it went on to conclude that this flask is had not demonstrated that her membership in that particular social group was a central reason for the persecution that she suffered and in doing so obviously the board affirmed a finding of the says responded could meet the mixed motives central reason standard if she could establish that not only did the gang want to harm her if she didn't pay the extortion a mile but that they also wanted to harm her because she owned a business had family in the us or had a minor or a daughter that is that she she would also have to show that the gang wanted to harm her or because of her membership in a social group  not withstanding the fact that the gang initially selected her because of her membership in that particular social group and that was standing the fact that the gang not only targeted her but set this exorbitant should demand based on her membership in that group but the both the board and the immigration judge reasoned that because the the ultimate aim of m s thirteen was simply to obtain money the fact that they had targeted her based on her membership in this particular social group that was just a means to an ad and it can't satisfy the one central reason required in doing that the judge starts her analysis by reviving matter of a coast a suggestion that by definition persecution entails inflicting harm or suffering in order to con ish someone for a nd protect the characteristic which the persecutor wishes to overcome obviously that's not the circuits definition of kissing the board it's pretty ject at that notion now this this other part of the judge's definition of persecution that she's working with this idea that the persecutor has over you know this protected i've as far as i know don't cases ever been decided based on that language and it obviously can't be apply it to cases involving i characteristics like race i mean if somebody is singled out and harmed persecuted because of that person's race the persecutors not trying to overcome that person's race in that sense it's not nonsensical this point your honor i think the p i made the exact same mistake obviously if the immigration judge applied it in correct legal standard and didn't analyze the facts under that standard the the think probably should have been sent back so the judge could analyze questions of motive in the st instance but the b i didn't do that but in the b i's to sit and this is pages four and five  similar to the judge to the b i recognizes that this blast this is membership in this particular social group that i'm talking about what amount of women who have close family abroad may have raised her profile to gang members as someone who would likely be willing and able to comply with the ransom demand so they understand that that may well have played a role in the initial targeting but then they go on to say and this is at the bottom of page five of the record your honor as we explained in the asylum analysis there's no evidence of the record that gang members targeted this respondent because of her membership in one of these particular  social groups as an end in itself they use the language as an end to themselves but alternately if that's what they're driving at the fact it seems to me that it doesn't matter why she was singled out if that was just a means to their ultimate goal of maximizing the amount of money that they might be able to extort and that's just not consistent with the statutory language because in order for us to meet the on account of requirement we simply have to show that missile aska was persecuted because of her membership in a particular social group act makes clear that in order to meet that test we have to show that she was or will be that her better ship at a particular social group was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant well her persecution began when these gang this gang member shows up didn't bans the six orbit amount of money from her threatens to kill her daughter if she doesn't pay this exorbitant amount of money clearly her membership in this particular social group is one central reason for it the visit as well as the exorbitant amount of money that they are asking for and if she doesn't pay that exorbitant amount of money which is predicated on her being in the social group the only reason they think that she couldn't pay that money is because she's part of the social group the threat is then that they're going to harm her daughter it seems to me you know but he could come to the conclusion that this wasn't a central reason for the m s thirteen's persecuting of this particular petitioner and in that respect both the i j a and the  financial benefit they are really not discriminating in who they target with the exception of wanting to talk to people from whom they can get money and that's the issue in this case the court found that that they weren't targeting her because they disagreed with her status as a small business owner or female business you know who owned a small business or a mother of a young child look the court said was that that was mr joe recognized reasons to raise her profile but that they were targeting her solely for one man show benefit and it's interesting because i disagree with mr job the board most certainly did find in matter to singa in a matter of a contest of the board said that one of the tools significant aspects of the accepted construction of persecution is that the harm is inflicted you know based on a difference of opinion with a belief or a character rested and that that to struction was repeated by this court in a case called fernando's or t in which the court said persecution only occurs when there is a difference between the persecutors views of the status rather between the persecutors use case status and his victim it's oppression inflicted because of the difference that the persecutor will not tolerate and that is very consistent with feeling think it's very consistent with the type of protections that it offers otherwise anyone who is a victim of a crime and of course criminals are good people for  consulting will tell you don't appear to be vulnerable when you walk outside don't appear to have money you don't take when you travel abroad don't take money out because you targeted because you're you're looked at as being you know a good victim and that's what the imus thirteen did in this case they are not going to target people who don't have money to give them and the only evidence in this case it's even brought up her membership one of these groups w said i can pay and they said yes you can you have people in the united states very large portion of the guatemalan society is in the united states and says well listen to stuff and in fact in the record there is evidence that a very large part of the guatemalan g d p is absolutely dependent on remittances sent from the united states so of course the thirteen and any other criminal gang knows it's somebody for their religion or their ethics or anything else they're just saying that you're an educated part of society they are known to be to be very educated and very successful and therefore you know they they might  be a good financial target yes i would say the same thing i would say the same thing about anyone who is being targeted to curb you know just solely for the fact that they appear to have money that's what criminals do they don't you know it's efficient in the sense that you know they're looking for people that will financially benefit them there is just no evidence in this record that  asserting disagreed with any of you know with her membership in any of these groups in fact they would not want to overcome you know her membership because in effect they would be chewing the goose that lays the golden  you know to to because of that asked what makes her a good target you know for them and even though they define our goods in terms of a social group if yes and certainly i mean and this court has found in other cases that to talk argument of people you know because they have money is not necessarily persecution on account of that basis because why else it would make every victim of a crime a sickly a member of a social group if you are targeting older people you know because you think you know what older member of society says that perhaps within a certain business you know they're vulnerable because they're older they're vulnerable because they might have money but you're you're targeting them for that reason because it doesn't make sense otherwise in terms of what criminal refugee act and they say it is this difference of opinion between the status or the ideas of the people and you see this in religion you know if the difference in religion you do not agree with a person's  just you know following or politics you disagree with a person's politics and you are looking to persecute them because you want to overcome that char this case you know and there are situations where our support is found and i believe it was the funniest fincorp goble although that is just a bit of particular social group case there are cases in them because of this a store full of tension between the groups not because they have money and in this case there is no evidence that emma thirteen really tailored other than the fact that they thought her status to those groups gave them money is no evidence that they cared about her leaving that group changing her ideas in that group in those groups you know or that they even had a difference about him yet with her she said that they came in and they bought things that her store at one point they said to her own you doing very well if they didn't seem to really care about her status or about her you know any difference of opinion here except for the fact just they knew she had money  job argues no one loses the you know all of the legal but he hasn't pointed to with the exception of the one comment that the person made to her when she said i can't pay i don't have money and he said i know you do you have family and in the us that is the only evidence is nothing in her declaration in which she says they commented on her status and there's nothing in the rest of her testimony to indicate that they were at expect the government to come in and concede that if a criminal organization or even a government seeks to extort money and does so by way of profiling and using protective characteristics like race or religion as the basis of its target thing its victims that that would somehow not constitute a central reason for characteristic was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the book if the person is specifically chosen because of that person's protected characteristic i don't see how any anybody could even argue that it doesn't meet the test the government has to come back and make these arguments about using this definition you know for a matter of a cost of persecution that definition again it predates the refugee act and it stems from a case called matter of dia's that was interpreted in the phrase physical persecution the statute that was being interpreted there is the old two hundred and forty three dollars h that statute did  have any language about an account over an excess the only term in the statute that had to be defined was physical persecution and as a result the agencies had to develop their own test for nexus we don't