only cases which is the case before the court the government had submitted to the core a short explanation about bras which petition has some issue ed we argue that barrage was does not require the one central reason standard which both the i share in the board had applied in this case rather it puts applies to mix motive cases and i would contend that it does not want but in any case the petitioner argues that she would meet that standard in any case she argues that she is not only a member of a social group which in compass is her husband who is initially targeted by criminals as well as her mother who was likewise targeted and that she fear she of someone with some financial means or power like the land holders incurred job a so that when the criminals targeted him to use as magic and open the vault and i am having difficulty with the connection that this is part of family it seemed to me that it didn't make any difference about the family they wanted the money they wanted him to tell him how to get in the bank and get the money i'm not sure it's a cause under the arc so maybe you could focus on well what's interesting to address that point is that the petitioner testified her husband departed peru a year prior to her departure and yet in that year the criminal organization bothered to threaten her family and harm her mother one would think that the hotel would have hired another employee to replace the petitioner's husband why wouldn't the card tell the focus its efforts to rob the hotel from the snew employ so their continued interest in the family sort of goes above just agreement of any interest in the family if he can no longer get into the money there must be some other reason crocked so if there's some other reason how does that come under the act we don't you have to have a reason that comes with the for the for the prior persecution to occur that we can take care of one i understand so i would argue that the criminal cartel continued to hold an interest in this family and the petitioner because it was may be trying to inflict retribution on the family for failing to comport with its demands to help them rob the bank and the family the failure to help is in itself an expression of political opinion against illegal activity against the fact that the family doesn't believe the police or government authorities could protect it against such criminal activities the criminals know that if the family it really doesn't have recourse from the police and continues to try to exact revenge on that issue raised for the  i understand but now that this was decided in two thousand and seventeen we can revisit the board's erroneous standard applied and see that was the right standard to what was before them but you're saying now we because it wasn't raised before the bell at that time we have to be reminded well i can't say it wasn't exactly raised prior counsel had specifically argued that yes if you have a new case it seems to me there has to be a petition for rehearing in the bank but all we can do is review the case the board had we can't add into it new information that prior counsel did not raise but this is where i'm stuck i think the board did apply the wrong standard to the claim that was presented to it because it had a withholding claim and are and apply the once and for all reason standard to that claim right the board cited alien suffered past persecution or it's more likely in that she will suffer persecution in the future on account of a protected ground and here the court found that there was no to the board found that there was no nexus between the harm that she feared and a protected ground so whether whether or not the one central reason standard applies if there is a particular ground that she's relying on and whether  mixed mode of between either a non act ground or a ground numerated under the act but here the agency found that this was a case very similar to th that this court ruled that the desire to be free from criminal activity is not something that's on account of a protected ground now my opponent has tried to suggest that there's a political  pin in involved i think when the court looks at the facts of the case and the agency was more than reasonable and determining that under to the facts it was clear that they this was a criminal enterprise that was seeking to get money they were not trying to persecute her because of a family relationship or a political opinion but in itself you know the board had made a similar ruling to the one we have here in terms of what you're saying and we ran almost for a minute because we said we're not i mean we're not trying to prejudge how the case should come out when your board looks at it again but the reality is borne you applied the wrong legal standard we're not board ruling in the same exact posture is the one you describe in this case and we nonetheless did remand so i'm trying to figure out well why wouldn't we do the same thing in this case so here's the critical distinction your honor in the court the ninth circuit panel found that there was an imputed political opinion because the person opposed to police corruption and that that was established in the facts so in bras they found that although there was a criminal activity issue in the case there was also the possibility of a motive that was found under the act of a imputed political opinion by opposing police corruption here in this case and to be distinguish there is no nexus whatsoever so while the court the board may have cited the one central reason standard just like it did in brought us it the board said there was absolutely no nexus now the board also said that that there was no nexus at all the difference though between this case and the court found that there was a nexus there's just another way of gauging your argument is next period that's correct so yes in bras they did to term there's an exploded because there was a finding by this court that the person opposed political corruption and that was an impudent political opinion but here offered to motives that could be under the act such as imputed political opinion and particular social group but its government's position that neither of those are are valid under the act and that this particular fact pattern shows that the persecutors were only interested in persecuting for economic reasons and that's the critical stiction between this case and ross and just because the board indicated that they were so the part of the standard is the one central standard argument which is court eventually rejected in bras it didn't rely on that until to make conclusion because in the ultimate conclusion the board said that there was no nexus at all between the alleged persecution and they protect the ground and for that reason the court should deny this petition for you so if unless a court has a additional questions all rest on that doesn't would conclude just again to bring up the point that even after the petitioner's husband departed peru her and entire additional year these criminal elements continue to threaten and go after the petitioner and her mother again without seeming having any financial benefit of doing so so that out one could find that their interest in the petition