expressed her fear of return to ukraine and was interviewed by an asylum officer who determined that her fear was credible she was placed in a muddle proceedings in a hearing continue the number of times she did submit her application for asylum  and there had been threats to her family as well so that is another basis for her asylum that she had not paid these people back and they would single her out and target her if she would be that's not there singling out not because of her membership in a particular social her application withholding or cat protection particular social group that she is first and foremost is that her husband were business owners that were exploited extorted and not protected by the government additionally she said because she's in danger she goes back because of this transaction concerning the passport dimitri levinsky he was killed in ukraine based on that we filed a motion to reopen with the board of mission fields stating that this was an additional circumstance and a change circumstance that merited the reopening of the case and would allow for him also that he had a political opinion that was opposed to russian coming and taking over part of ukraine and supporting those fighting in the east opposing the government of ukraine the board erred we believe as a matter of law in not granting the motion to reopen and not fully considering all the evidence that have been submitted this court noted in sisi to talk more about particular social group just because all members of a group suffer persecution does not mean that this characteristic is the only one that links them to share  characteristics does not disqualify an otherwise valid social group the war did not adequately address as i said the fact that mr governments former business partner was killed about a year after their hearing they both testified who are vulnerable and who cannot be protected by the government because the government is in collusion or cooperation with the prosecutors or because a government simply cannot protect that's not how you define your social group before the agency  recognizing now are not and if there is not then we simply tonight petition i think the other aspect was people who are perceived to have wealth i think that was also raised below i believe that the social group is not limited solely to their persecution they have been persecuted and we said and the court said in c c just because everybody has been persecuted doesn't mean there is not a particular social group where our position is that it is a particular social group business owners who are vulnerable to being persecuted and are not protected from the government by the right as our reserve any additional us additional questions hours or any time for a little immutable characteristic and i would i would say to that business owners i don't believe that specifically being deemed being a business owner is not innate or immutable characteristic so much other cases such as identity developing the economy and democracy they were able to establish the business however they were extort the government either in cooperation or looking the other way let this happen to them we believe that this is a particular social group small business owners who were not protected by the government or could not be protected by the guy at the fact that they were persecuted that's not what their common nexus is it's small business owners are the fact that they and c c the fact that all of them are persecuted is not make it any less of a social thing and once again they're not saying that they are part of a social group that everyone that's ever been persecuted are harmed in ukraine that's not the nexus the nexus is small business owners that's the