may please the court this case presents issues but you keep your voice a yes this case presents issues of whether mr contrast marion is statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal for non permanent sumerians counsel before the immigration court the nd issue is that in reviewing the immigration court's decision the board applied the in crack law regarding the standard for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship the motion to remand while his case was pending before the board he filed a motion to remand on the basis of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel and that motion contains exhibits with a variety of evidence that was not presented by his counsel for the immigration court a reveal well looking at those exhibits that were filed reveals the range of evidence that was essential to mr c and was not presented before the immigration court the basic and most fundamental error that the counsel made before the immigration court was the failure to present statements from the qualifying relatives in the case suggested that the written statements do not have evidence or weight which is inconsistent of the practice of the immigration court it's also worth noting that he appears not to believe this himself as he submitted eight written statements of rd parties as evidence just no statements from the qualifying relatives in the case what would these additional statements add to the record i'm glad you asked that so what they add most fundamentally is evidence of the emotional harm that would be suffered by mr qualifying relatives if you were moved to mexico and we know that that evidence was missing from the record in the immigration court because the immigration court specifically said that mr contrary as martin had difficulty articulating the degree of harm that would be suffered his children and his parents further the immigration course decision does not examine the emotional distress that would be caused by mr contrary smartens absence from the u s this is a critical factor unusual hardship in the context of this case in the context we just moved to mexico right well in this case one of the factors that is essential is the number of qualifying relatives that depend on maren he had three children who were u s citizens including one who was on the amount of all that the time of the individual hearing and he has parents who are aging dealing with medical problems and would also be emotionally distress d because of his removal to mexico and so when he sees the immigration for it analyzing the issue they look slowly at the material consequences of his him moving to mexico which would be a lot of financial support and and factors like that but the emotional aspect is really important particularly with the medical condition of his parents so trial counsel did present records the immigration court that  part of the motion to remand shows that he was concerned about his medical conditions because of the emotional impact of having his son returned to mexico you wanted to address the other issue ye has been interpreted by both the board and the th circuit in cases where there are more than one qualifying relative as applying to the group of qualifying relatives as a whole and i was just a quick site received as for the board and wa for the th circuit and received as it was a single mother of six children four of whom were u s citizens and the case repeatedly referred to hardship to the qualifying relatives as a whole not to each individual qualifying relative in isolation now this makes a lot of sense if you think about a family where the hardship each qualifying relative is going to be increased by the suffering of each other all fine relative and this is a principle that's been consistently recognized by both the board and the th circuit the truth about hardship in these cases is that it's the hardship builds between each qualifying relative said that it could only look to the qualifying relative to the hardship to one specific qualifying relative and could not militarily and that was the legal error that was made by the is the board misreading its own precedent yes i would say that it is misapplying its precedent that's correct it cited us for the matter that having a large number of qualifying relatives could  meet the standard of extreme an exceptionally unusual hardship and then later on it says that you can only look to the courts or the hardship of one individual qualifying relative so the decision is almost internally inconsistent although you can also say that they were mistreating so the last thing i would say is that the two issues are intertwined to an extent and that the board of immigration appeals if you have the hardship evidence is only applying to each qualifying relative and that likely influences decision that the more evidence of cumulative hardship would not have influenced the immigration court's decision when they were examining the case if the b i a had applied the proper standard of cumulative hardship would have acknowledged that the evidence presented in the motion would very likely have influenced the immigration court in rendering its decision thank you i'd like to reserve yes this is time for a bottle may please this court my name is in draw a very on behalf of the respondent the attorney general william barr this court lacks jurisdiction to review the determination that contrary fail to establish an exceptional extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives correct standard it is a cumulative analysis of all the ferias factors so for example that would be the financial the emotional all of the hardships combined together for each qualifying relative twelve and under she had two older non us citizen the board in that case did not can say that each child only had a twenty five percent hardship because they were all similarly situated the hardship was exceptionally extremely unusual to each of them whereas here controllers wants to take three disparate groups of relatives and add them up to equal  like the fact on each relative for the hardships yet so we would be for the emotional and economic hardships to each individual relative combine no you can't add them up and say well his son in oregon has a ten percent chance and his parents in chico each have a ten percent chance and then his children in nevada have each a thirty percent so if we add that up do we get to the exceptional extremely unusual hardship because that's not what the statute says and that's not what this court nor the board have ever said the board and this court have consistently said that you would just have to engage in a cumulative analysis of all the factors you cannot look at one factor in isolation and the board in in dismissing the argument specifically cited the statutory language which was the qualifying relative it didn't say to qualifying relatives as a collective just group of children that were yes and and each of the children and what you're saying that were seen or should be read is that is looking at each individual child correct because they had the exact same hardship there was no differentiating the four children doesn't seem to be with the boys but the but the board did not isolate the children as contrary suggests that they did the the board there while they were a group of children did not each child established the exceptional extremely unusual hardship there wasn't a situation where individually none of them had a hardship the hardship to all of the children was the same and this idea that you can add them up is not supported again in the statute or any precedent of this court or the board finally turning to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim while the stay in this court senators may have affected the applicant still must submit the evidence that was not submitted and here  there's just a suggestion that maybe the trial counsel could have done that but there is no concrete evidence beyond what was already presented to the immigration judge so in conclusion the board correctly determined that there was no prejudice from the trial counsel's con well again it's just the statutory language does not permit the interpretation that contrary is suggesting that does interest in your argument statute sets the four for what an individual has to have to be granted cancellation of removal it can be granted with just one offering relative if the immigrant only has one however if there are a group of all fine relatives then the extreme and unusual hardship is reviewed in the aggregate and in the cumulative for the group of qualifying relatives well one way you could look at this is that i you know he counsel for the government said that they were in racine as there were four children and then you look at the at the claim basis for the hardship and you can just apply it to all the children is that a cumulative analysis or is that just i believe that is a cumulative analysis to say what is the hardship to the children as a group i believe that is what receipts did and in this case the immigration court i'm sorry it's actually the board should have you know did the qualifying relatives as a group meet the standard of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship well what if the wood is like it is here what it would have to one of the members of the group or worse for you have a child you have an infinite one and then you have adult children of the other and you have parents elderly clarence and another i understand that and i do still think that the cumulative in aggregate factors  apply and the reason for that is that you know even though they are in different situations different circumstances they still have emotional ties to one another that would be harmed if mr  mexico and so that harm would be suffered as a group because of their emotional ties to each other and this again goes back to the question of the evidence that was not presented at the immigration court which is the emotional ties between the different