good morning inmate please the court my name is finished patel and i represent the petitioner danny pena the petitioner is the son of a honduran police officer who blew the whistle on other officers who were corrupted by a gang that gang then turned his animosity against the mother towards the entire family as the expert explained the animosity generalized to the family as a group and for that reason the petitioner was selected for persecution there is one issue in this case and that is nexus the question is whether danny's family ties were a central reason to his persecution not the central reason but one central reason first persecution or is the board might ask was it minor or was it superficial or was it not we ask this court to reverse that about whether family ties are a protected class i saw the notice from d o j it sounds like that might be reconsidered by  defined in terms of biological on historical all the facts that relate to it is to read it actually was a member of a particular solution yes well that's just criminality if the if a criminal is just of the members of the family could turn into other one of the example sal members of the family were police and the only reason they were attacking me the family was because they were law enforcement offices that  criminal enterprise is that still a particular social group within the protection of the act well on this case not all the families were not understand that i'm just asking i'm trying to grasp what your argument is the argument is is that he was attaching go ahead and answer the question if i'm understanding you correctly you're asking whether any family members of a police officer would be considered a protected group is that well in this case it fits in because the expert testimony was that danny was persecuted based on his family ties out of reno that how did he know that he knows that based on his extensive experience with gangs and understanding their motivations and i thought it was a factual question and each i mean his task is expert testimony which translates into any other case that he sent no your honor it was based on the facts in the position to work with again but that was sort of a red herring in the record your honor because the expert and even the immigration judge concluded that the threat to danny didn't come from his refusing to accept a job that was an independent the expert and the i j a actually concluded that those threats arose from the conduct of the mother in that case so so so the expert himself concluded that the the risk to danny grew out of what his mother had done but then it developed a life of its own and so in danny's case with the mother if the mother was targeted because of the criminal enterprise and not wanting to be exposed  protected group but we wouldn't be able to establish in her case that caused her yes your honor that the well we're saying is the the relative though if the relative under the facts is targeted because of the relationship with that other family member that you don't impute the criminal motive of the first targeting to them to why did family members be arg yes or no or if it doesn't dispose of the question just looking at how the threats begin doesn't dispose of the question of the motivation for harming the family and in this case again danny himself was not a police officer his father was a police officer but his father his life became in danger even after the mother left the country even after she resigned from the police force because the family had an x on its back according to the evidence in the record  about here is the threat that was conveyed to the mother against her family isn't that what you're relying on as a matter of fact primarily these what may have been conveyed your honor to the mother but the threat specifically reference killing the family of danny ok  what what's the best way to distinguish between a central reason for a gangs targeting and an incidental reason what would be a good test for us to apply to distant tween a central and incidental  that's a great question your honor we believe that the test is a threshold test it's not a balancing test to motives the immigration judge said look the criminal enterprise profits is the primary motivation in this case it's the overriding motivation and the board said that's not the test we don't look for the dominant mode the board said that in matter of j v n that to look at the dominant motive is to run afoul of congressional intent and it surrender all other reasons secondary and therefore relevant the correct approach is to look at whether it meets a threshold or is it minor or superficial or is it not and that doesn't require a weighing of of reasons it doesn't require a this court the board to find it negatively they said it's simply a reason that's not incidental and not tangential meaning that it has some significance but it doesn't have to the rise to the level of being the dominant motive or the primary motive uniting central is incidental i think that's the confusion central has to be more than oh yes we're saying that it has to be not incidental or not minor or not superficial but we can't do what the government remains central  yes we would agree with that we would agree that it has to be important in some sense of the word but what the immigration and border in some sense we contend that according to the matter of j v n which was adopted by that we would consider reasonable and that's the last word that this circuit has had on it and it's implicate all those questions about how important central has to be if and i take it your argument is before us asked us to define exactly how important the reason has to be if we look at this record even the immigration judge concluded that a big part of why danny was targeted was his relationship to his mother and there is evidence of independent animosity against the family when the expert was asked why would they want to harm danny he didn't say anything about crime or money his first response was that the animosity against the mother generalize to that of the family but in asylum being based upon the mother it's a predicate that his mother had to be eligible as well do you agree with that statement out of the i j a or no your honor even the board disagreed with that statement but went on to find without any analysis that his nexus conclusions were not clearly erroneous but even the board disagreed with that that he's not a derivative in this case he's a principle asylum applicant and gets to independently establish nexus the gang could be construed as one central reason but i want to turn your attention as judge cost zero was a living to were not asked in this case to define how important something has to be to be a central reason i think it's enough to look at some other cases like ramirez me here the circuit where the circuit didn't find a nexus to particular social group in contrast the record in that case the court concluded that the sister was targeted because she had information about her brother in the course brandy which was cited by the government they went after a family because a family had money what in this case could danny have given a way to avoid persecution the trait for which he was selected was his family membership and we talked about the board's interpretation of the legal standard that doesn't allow us to weigh motives one against the other if we were to agree with you that there is some problem with what happened below what are you asking us to do remain and for for renewed fact findings on whether family status or the central reason are or why no your honor we're asking this court to reverse the determination of the board on nexus we believe there's substantial evidence in the record based on the experts testimony regarding animosity regarding the fact that danny wasn't involved in impeding the operations of the jury sos the fact that the father was was targeted even as a police officer the real threats to the father happened even after the mother left the country because you had a big x the family had a big red x on its back so we're arguing that there is substantial evidence to reverse the factual determination nexus when you apply the correct legal standard he was granted relief under the convention against torture which is quite rare but i guess the difference is when he can still be deported just to another country under that he doesn't have he doesn't have stats correct intrigues that doesn't have permanent relief the government can reopen the case based on change or people normally deported to different matter that it doesn't happen often it usually happens when somebody becomes a criminal priority of for immigration to then revaluate the country conditions it doesn't normally happen i'm out of time at this point i'd like to reserve the rest of the  attorney general here the direct evidence shows that the primary motive behind the gang members threats to petition his family are primarily motivated by criminal enterprise and financial is not based officers and twenty fourteen and twenty fifteen it's on the record on page forty four and the uncle indicated that these police officers had approached him to inquire whether he was acting on behalf of inspector sylvia  the morning maybe the core of my name is francisco we are and i am i like to start by addressing the idea that next is about focusing on the gangs actions as a means to an end the government points out evidence of this case is about tactics in furtherance of illegal activities it discusses that the threat of harm is quote simply a means by which gangsters can continue criminal behavior the problem with this position is that the law doesn't foreclose the question of next simply because there exists an overall purpose or goal of an organization wane an overall purpose so heavily was a mistake made by the i j a mistake made by the b i a and a mistake in the government's argument now instead the right question is whether the petitioner dan meant the threshold to demonstrate that his family ties were not incidents or tangential opening the inquiry to include all evidence shows that the threats aren't just about perpetuating if this was only about continuing criminal activity then the murder of the lead investigator forcing the family out of the country and making his mother quit the police force after two decades would have achieved that purpose if this was only about continuing illegal activity then the family and the petitioner in particular would no longer be under any threat because the goal would have been accomplished the to results can now continue their crime corruption without the family without the family affecting their their acts their criminal acts but the animosity directed towards a family goes far beyond simply continuing crime and corruption as dr bowerman the expert explained in testimony petition would not be in this if not for the relationship with his mother and when eighty three of the record he stated that the game would like to wait for years to harm dan and the longer he ducked and dodged them the more antagonized they would get how  know that as a matter of fact i mean no they did he would from his years of study of the games of the way the game operates he made a determination is accepted by a large as the by the immigration judge that this is how they operate they will lie in wait for years and the more that you try to run from them the more entire denies it would get and so based on the studies and based on what he sees in the country pon dozen years has showed us that we do in many cases need experts to fill in the gaps it or questions of the immigration judge may have even when there is evidence where they explicitly say that the family's in danger or that we're targeting danny or ultimately a criminal organization is created for the purpose of generating illicit profits and that is their primary motivation it is the central reason for the harm and anything else i would find would be subordinate to the fact that this group is out for financial profits illegal means the problem with that is that it focuses only on the purpose that the organization was created it ignores the text messages it ignores the expert opinions in ignores the fact that he petitioners mother his his stepfather was also in danger after twenty years of being on the board when all of a sudden these threats have come so if you look at the taliban of the circumstances then you see that there were motivations beyond the fact that these were just or even legal activity all right thank you counsel of cases submitted thanks to both sides for helping us out