and protection of the convention against torture the agency's main reason for denying asylum was that the harm the petitioner feared being kidnapped tortured and murdered by the m s thirteen gang and i'll salvador could not be an account of a protected ground because it was related to extortion the government no longer defends that basis which seems correct under this court's decisions and rios and us so turning to the issues that are still before the court i think after going back through this court's decisions involving death threats by violent groups i would say that i don't think the record would compel a finding of past those same cases though i think the record does compel the conclusion that missing re cases fear based on those death threats from this violent group is reasonable  someone in this case she would have had to have something physically bad happened to her and nothing happened to her family when they moved to another location nothing happened there so i you know with respect to her i'd sure it's a horrible situation but it doesn't meet the requirements of our lot as well so as i said i'm not arguing that she suffered past persecution now she wasn't physically harmed so not saying it was past persecution based on the threats the question for whether her fear is well founded is whether a quote reasonable person subject to these threats would fear that the threats be carried out that's from this court's decision and limb but do you have any  time that you see so i don't know that there is a case that's sort of on all fours both with the threats coming from the group as violent does this and the family being safe in another location in the country for this kind of period of time and then there is not that case in this case falls directly under with those sort of different areas one point that i would make is that you know that i j is reasoning so so the question is so there's the question of reasonableness and there's a question of relocation right the question of reasonableness is would a reasonable person fear the threat to be carried out this is a low standard is the court setting canalis fargus for a group like this that's demonstrated killers that the record shows kill frequently get away with it are not under cannot be stopped by the police in the country that's just like the shining path in  safe that can undermine the reasonableness so here one point and that is that like i was saying i think here that i do is reasoning in the boy's reasoning was that the family seems to have been able to avoid harm by relocating to another town and so the i j a says that undermines her the reason want to for fear and sort of models that with the the nexus analysis which isn't before the court but in doing so also models together the reason  here because they fear that they might at some future point the victim of a gang well that's that's right but i think the challenge i mean i think that the real limitation there is as to nexus and that's not before the court anymore  understand that but i'm just within the nexus issue of the side right it seems to me if i'm understanding you correctly yours is that your client has severed all passports if you concede that you also concede the fact that her family can move safely within the and i don't think that's true at all so she was specifically threatened by name by this violent group that sets her apart from vision was economic they wanted money they were trying to mine again you're talking about a nexus around and that's not before the court so right but a factual finding that her family stayed safe despite the fact that they were also threatened i don't think the government is disputing her subjective fear right but reasonable fear of persecution also has an objective reasonableness requirement now what's in your favor is that it only has to rise to ten percent in order to demonstrate fear of future persecution but when you're talking about a situation where a gang has targeted an entire family yes she was named specifically versus her siblings for example but they also threaten to carry out harm and death to other family members so the fact in the record setting aside the nexus analysis by the fact in the record that her family did relocate but yet nobody was harm that substantially undercuts the objective reasonableness of her fear now we c whether she still has that ten percent level are not in order to establish objective reasonableness and terms of fear future persecution but the fact that they remain safe all this time does substantially undercut your case doesn't it so  points one is is like around it just said the agency is determination was that by relocating her family was able seems to have been able to avoid home and so the reason why this question and the relocation question are distinct under the regulations and under this court's law so the question of whether her fear is reasonable i just don't see how anyone can say that a reasonable person would not fear for their safety in this context after having been repeatedly threatened for death by a group that carries on murders all the time in executing threats just like this and it's to relocation the board in two thousand and sixteen and knowledge there has actually been a specific finding of relocation so i think the court should hold the record compels that her fear is reasonable and remain for an actual determination as to whether she can relocate somewhere else and there the fact that her family seems to been able to relocate in order to avoid the threats that would be evidence that would bear on that but in terms of whether it's really a reasonable person would fear for their life in this situation i think the record does compel that they would under this court's case looking at similarly violent and ruthless groups like this i thought they returned to the original town so they went away for a month  two to one town and they went back to lolo today where they where they had lived and then about a year and a half before she testified in her hearing which was she testified august two thousand and twelve year and a half sort of beginning two thousand and eleven they moved to another town of zacatecas luka and so it's really that period of a year and a half of them being unharmed and so i could take a look a few hours away from where they had first lived that's the period of the i j a is and the agency is saying shows that her fear is not reasonable and i think if you look at this court decision in kaiser and women in canalis five yes there is much longer periods of someone who had been specifically threaten themselves living in safety in the country of origin without the threats being carried out and four three two two three twenty four of the record in which there's an analysis from a researcher who studies gangs in situ america and says that people who are returning to parties are at even greater risk that the gangs networks sort of contract them when they good morning your honor smith please the court on carmel morgan on behalf of the respondent the acting u s attorney general i agree there is no past persecution in this case and i agree that the nex issues should not be before the court in this matter so you ought to concentrate on the well founded fear issue which the government contends the standard has not been met it's not objective lee reasonable for the petitioner in this case to fear harm where she has never personally been harmed her family members have not been harmed and it's quite clear that there agree that even though the court has said that death threats alone could a stablish past persecution or a well founded fear in none of the cases i reviewed were there in fact just death threats there were other components so a physical confrontation a close physical confrontation or family members or other people who were similarly similarly situated who had in fact been harmed correct that was the shining path case from peru i think what distinguishes that case is that there's no indication in canalis fargus that there were any family members remaining in peru who were unharmed allegation in this case and in general yeah and in this case the issue of her being a deep deep or t v was really not specifically raised until the brief before this court there is some evidence that in some cases deportees are in fact targeted upon return but those cases seem or the information seems to concentrate on people who are  were recruited by gangs or or were sort of the target of the gangs and here that seems a little bit attenuated the target actually seems to be her father and she's being used and other family members were being used in the threatening letters a sort of leverage to get him to pay it doesn't seem like a case that's similar to those where there was some sort of direct retallack retaliatory anger i don't think she angered the gang in any way i was just trying he said he didn't raise it it was brief but it wasn't before the are you saying it's in an exhausted argument i would argue it under this court's case law i could understand why the court might disagree because there's a distinction between issues and arguments but i'm letting you know that this argument was not made and so it's not surprising that  g nobody says well the convention against torture claim didn't seem to have been discussed previously but the government would urge the court to also uphold the finding that she didn't establish entitlement to torture convention protection here but what's happening with withdraw claim that the they're going with the asylum claim wherever whichever direction it goes in that's