it please the court the stakes could not be higher here as it is under spewed gang members directed multiple death threats and escalating physical violence against brian gomez rivera before he fled el salvador's a child the courts should either reverse the and for a proper application of the correct legal standard as to whether at least one central reason why gang members targeted brian was his family relationship to his father a reversal would be warranted because this is the rare case dist distinguished by bryant's credit it compelling and direct evidence that the gang members who threaten to kill him told him on hold with patients that they were in fact targeting him because of his family relationship to his father instead this caller makes a particularly right evaluation of the content of the agency decision or the nature of the v a s decision indicates that apply the wrong standard or leave the matter in doubt this court has not hesitated to rem clear error that the immigration judge found that the motive for the harm suffered by brian at the hands of the gang members was general gang recruitment and not and those are the specific words the v a uses and not the protective ground his family relationship to his father as far as the immigration judge what what the immigration judge says in her decision we have evidence not only based claim she actually cites the subordinate language of the b a's decision and then goes on to say that in her opinion that the that the harm suffered by brian the evidence showed that because for example and she's analyzing the fact that other people had been harmed for other reasons because of that it showed that  the harm they suffered was on account of another reason and therefore the harm suffered by brian was on that same reason that she found to be gentle gang recruitment and not the protected reason that we're certain today the content of the b i decision in this case repeats the same kind of mistakes that this court corrected into brown or effectively requiring brian to prove the gang sole or primary reason for targeting him was his protected family relationship another b i's this isn't as confusing as well because not only does it require that but it also mischaracterizes the idea is the surgeon as making a factual finding that brian's protected family group was quote incidental or tangential to the gangs unprotected gang motive and as i just explained that i did never found that well a couple reasons here on the legal side of things those might be proper consideration considerations that take into account when analyzing these mixed lot of claims when the proper legal standard is applied here as the well this case is different and we can affirmatively say that this case here based on the record is the different from any case in this context that has come before this court because we have at pages two hundred fifty nine and two hundred sixty of the administrative red we have evidence direct evidence that that gang members are saying we are targeting you and this is in the context of multiple death threats at least eight death threats according to brian's testimony that the gay members were targeting him because of his father because his father had captured people's father had worked previously as a police officer and worked with worked taking transporting gang members to and from the prison and so what we have here is evidence that that we've not seen in these same cases before where we've got the person or the entity inflicting harm saying why they're inflicting on practically the words of the statute themselves itself is falling out of the mouth of the persecutor here  now even the government concedes this is only kind of furthering compounding the confusion here even the government can see that page thirty three of its answer brief before this court that the gang had both a protected family reason for the harm that they and that they inflicted and an unprotected recruitment reason for targeting brian and that is exactly contrary to what the b i a is saying in  this result in our opinion is by either applying the wrong standard which with us require remained for for application of the proper standard or else they ignored key evidence here evidence that we don't you're correct that this court has held in the past that just simply saying no to a gang does not automatically create this imputed anti gay political opinion however here just based on the evidence that we have it doesn't seem like ially we've today we wanted to focus more specifically on just a family based particular social group we kind of rest on what we've included in the briefs were open to answer any questions regarding the political opinion i think  other reason that remained would be necessary in this case or would be appropriate is that after this case was decided there's been intervening be a president that's been handed down  that discusses this exact context family based social groups in these gang contex and in that case not only does that case represent the b i a clarifying guidelines on how adjudicators should handle cases like these but that case specifically discusses how nexus may be found in situations like this and it discusses the interweaving of a political motive with the targeting of a family member so what we have here is yes we've got this particular social group was based on family members relationship to his father but also we have th where we have all these gang members and that is something that was brought up in expert testimony where the expert explicitly stated that yes because of the because of bryant's relationship to because of his father's work as a police officer here that would be reason to find that they're targeting of him was based upon this imputed political opinion and also with us intervening precedent we believe that it's appropriate  client the record in this case simply does not compel the clues in that the petitioner met his burden of proving that he suffered persecution or would suffer percs station on account of a protected ground that the the gang recruitment efforts were the one or that his father's police officer status was the one central reason why he was persecuted or would be persecuted  missouri a central reason a central reason and at the end of the day the the standard of review in this case is such that the petitioner would have to establish that the record matter j b and as much as their own precedent decision and found that the protected grounds that were alleged in this case relating to imputed political opinion and membership in a particular social group made up of family members of th police officer these grounds were incidental to the ground to grounds that were not protected and that is the gang members want to increase their ranks and that's not a protected basis for saying that in this case that i was there w testimony that that's precisely what some of the gang members did in using his father's nickname and talking with him about that why why doesn't why isn't  the central reason and highlighting the word central there to see that it's a reason is reading the word central out of the statute and in this case while the expert witness did testify that that might be  reason why somebody would be targeted the expert witness in this case also testified that typically in cases where an individual is targeted for recruitment on the basis of their father being a military or police officer it's to get information out of that person and there are other things that they're looking to get in this case the physician his father had left the country for years earlier and that was part of what the board and the immigration judge took into consideration correct me if maybe they would try and work him over in order to bring his father back but at the end of it yes that was coded i mean he was considered credible at the end of the day we're now talking about whether or not the facts in this case are sufficient to establish that a central reason why the petitioner in this case was targeted was on account of a protected ground and where the immigration judge and the board presented a reasonable basis for their conclusions that's grounded in the record it would be difficult if not impossible to say that the record compels another version where the record provides ample support for the conclusion that that there were non protected grounds for if that were the central reason why the it was targeted and if you look at matter of alli a which the court came out with after the decision was rendered in this  case matter of las unavailing i think opposing counsel mentioned that the case should be remanded for a matter of valliere for consideration of a standard set forth a matter about yeah but the board applied the correct mix motive standard in this case and critically in matter of alyea if you look at pages forty three to forty four of that decision the the board says look if the persecutor would have treated the applicant the same if the protected characteristics of a family did not exist then the applicant has not established a claim on this ground and here you have evidence in the record where many individuals who were not the children of police officers were targeted for recruitment into this gang because the gang was looking to increase its membership and the gangs motive of looking to increase its membership is not a protected ground that's recognized under the i n a as a basis for asylum can we look to see you would have been treated the same without without  his category of twelve ten twelve fourteen year old boys right that you had a heightened sort of a red flag on his head is that enough to say it's a central reason i think that if you had a stablished perhaps and this is where the family members of the petitioner himself come in no one else in his family no one else who had who's a member of his protected particular social group was target he's effectively a particular social group of one and there was nobody so did so did many other individuals in his town fit the same demographic and in fact the expert witness testified that he fit a certain democrat fact that was likely to be recruited and to the extent that you mentioned you know sort central reason is that this gang organization is looking to increase its membership and include crease its ranks the fact that he had this additional characteristic is not is not as positive and it doesn't it petitioner proposed social group was family members of his police of this police officer and there it wasn't limited distinction to just male relatives and again there's no evidence from the rector in the record indicating that other relatives of this particular police officers singled out and targeted for gang harassment or recruitment in fact the evidence in the record that talks about other relatives or people who are connected to the petitioners father suggest that they were ultimately it wasn't it wasn't enough to conclude that the central reason for the just heard harassment that he experienced in el salvador that this was not the central motive of  his father's i mean i don't i don't know what what other avenues for that relief if it is his father had filed an asylum application and been granted he could have been a writer on that application but to my knowledge proof he had an opportunity to present witnesses before the immigration judge he presented a false claim with witnesses in cross examination and an expert witness and was unable to prevail there had another opportunity to appeal before the you please the court and answer to judge kelly's question if all you had to do for the one central reason standard to prove that it's incidental was to show that there are other people outside of the group targeted then the mixed mode of analysis  effectively be notified and so our stance is that there is that while that is relevant to the consideration that does not completely cut undercut brian's claims for this application and further when it really emphasized that unlike many cases like the judges have recognized brian's testimony has been found to be credible if if the one central reason standard cannot be found with support from direct evidence to the applicant and it wasn't that he thought he was going to be targeted he was told when he was being persecuted excuse me when he was being attacked when he was being threatened when his life was being threatened why he was being targeted if there used to be credible this was supported by expert west witness testimony that was also found to be credible and were were uncertain what more the one central reason could be standard to who support that and and your honour's is right it is one central reason or at least one central reason it is not a central reason or the only reason brian's kind of credited testimony was that he would talk he was told what would happen that he was going to be used as a means as judge kelly recognized to poll his father back to el salvador that he was going to be used to harm his father because would he was told that that's what would happen and so that is that as we that is a difference in that he wasn't speculating that maybe they were after him because of this reason he was told why and and then the language from elie a that he must be treated the same that the counsel points to that must be read in in context with the statute the statute does not say that if this person would be treated differently than that then they can't receive protection brian may have been fitting into the category of individuals who would be targeted by the gangs however he was targeted at least a central reason why he was targeted was because of this relationship to his that we're not arguing that that evidence can't be weighed however it can't be weighed as an either or analysis that if this happens then brian if other people in his family aren't targeted then brian cannot be targeted going which of the statute says that what asks for at least one central reason that the applicant was targeted not everyone in the particular social group and it doesn't consider that as a a full analysis doesn't consider those factors right they didn't consider them but and i hate to harp on the same thing but because of this the language of the statute including the subordinate language and insane and not as the board of immigration appeals said in their decision is that and not meaning that because brian was targeted because of his relationship because of he was it fits the category of gang recruitment it can't be because of his relationship to his father and so those are relevant considerations that can be taken into account but within the confines and and also we would like to point out that the sister was not similarly situated to brian she lived in a different town she was a different age and so those are also frat relevant factual considerations that compel in addition to the legal error that the evidence is in support of approval and i see that i'm running out of time i just want to emphasize that brian has been told what will happen if you return to el salvador but he will be persecuted and he will be attacked and for that reason we asked for him and thank you