we can start right away with the first case for the day leon solis versus sessions so lease this matter comes as an appeal and appeal from the board of immigration appeals decision denying cancellation of removal to mr sillies which he was a claim for relief that he pushed at the individual hearing of the immigration court level and then lost there and then also lost at the board of immigration appeals level in order to qualify for  move a person can be continuously united states for ten years be a good person of good moral character a person not commit convicted of specific criminal offenses and establish if they have that exceptional extreme issues why don't you tell us what you're racing here ok the issue is our position is that the trial would suffer exceptional extreme unusual hardship in this particular case in this particular case you had a child who mother was a diabetic and if the father had been deported from the united states that child would suffer exceptional extreme unusual decision of the the immigration court not to be able the immigration court they concede that they although no evidence of medication was presented they would concede that her testimony was the testimony was credible in that she was in fact a diabetic who  who could not work because of what she was suffering from me ask this as i said our scan review is limited and it seems to me that you could be quarreling only over the correctness of the factual findings our brief there with that was a case in which to be a found that extreme unusual hardship did impact a child there were two or four u s citizen children you had a mother who was mexican who if she had been deported from the united states those four children would not have a sole caregiver and in other circumstances in the monetary case is right  in the in the in in the monitor your case you had a situation where the other parent had already been deported from the united states so if the respondent there had been deported from the united states they would then join the other person the other parent in their native country and then the other case ends on a case there was a situation where the for the father was also able to provide economically and he was still living in the united states and they were together so what we're saying is in this case what distinguishes this case from the other case law in terms of exceptional it's an extreme hardship is that you have a father who's t caregiver and you have a mother who who is not able to provide in any kind of way so of this particular person was you're not denying that she was able to care for the child in a maternal way right no no we're not denying that so let me let me be clear are you arguing that it is a matter of law these facts have to be found to be expanded stream hardship yes ok please in our position is because that the language is economic detriment alone is insufficient but in this and that's in we interpret that as meaning sure if you're going to take a pay cut by being deported to mexico we're or you're going to you're going to suffer economically that that's not enough but the difference between that and what we're talking about here is survivability there's absolutely no way for this child to survive if her father is deported from the united states and it's not just economic hardship it's it's they will be homeless they will be on the street if this respondent is deported from the united states and the mother can't work and there's absolutely no way for this u s citizen child to to survive economically and that's what we just think that that's what distinguishes this from from from cases where the court has found stream an unusual hartman hardship does not exist we think this is on all fours with the one case where the court said we looked at four  citizen children a father who is out of the picture but if the mother had been removed to mexico that child those four children for us is and children would not be able to survive so we're not saying this is economic detriment we're saying this is a matter of being able to survive being able to make sure that the u s citizen child is not homeless and is not does not want for food and all the other things that that are necessary to survive so in  summary our position is this is more like the receipt in this case and this is this does is distinguished from the montreal in and is zola case because in those cases there was a parent somewhere that could help there was there were support in our position here is there's no support  country well once you fall and once you file in asylum application you are entitled to get an employment authorization i understand that but was that and for the attorney general your honour's nothing in the opening remarks by opposing counsel changes our position in our brief that this is a clear case where the court l in the brief there was a mention that there was a factual and legal air in the stated issues as if a promise that there was going to be argument you know argument in relation to that legal air  that brief never fulfills that promise there's no mention of the case law in point there's no mention of the statute barring jurisdiction and so what we have is essentially a quarrel over the weighing of the case said illegal there is where the tribunal seriously mick mis characterizes or totally overlooks evidence and again opposing counsel didn't make that claim that claim i mean counsel would be in a better position to the claim was essentially that i guess with the remaining parent who has diabetes she would say she was the u citizen child would suffer economically but it's but but the the record is not clear that she would state that the us citizen child would just stay in the united states or return to  mala in the application itself he he claims that the child stand united states but in the record at ninety three i believe when he's asked will you take your daughter with you to guatemala he says that he will take his his  daughter with him to guatemala and so it was his burden to meet below and we have no evidence of country conditions in guatemala i have no evidence of what the educational opportunities may or may may not be in guatemala we have simply his acknowledgement that in guatemala his father still lives there and he has two siblings there and so that the evidence in this case frankly was slim burden to meet and there's no suggestion in the brief or an opening comments that that the agency mischaracterized that evidence or overlooked the evidence so we would say that we don't actually enter into a way of the equities here we just ask whether there is a legal error and respectful and said that no legal error has been shown and we reiterate our position in our brief that there is no jurisdiction  wife was unable to work because of her diabetes was there any medical evidence or the court didn't see that your honor there was no medical evidence and why for south did not testify did not testify she entered a personal statement and that personal statement brief as it was also didn't mention that she has diabetes that she's otherwise constrained from working or caring for the child so there it was a witness who was a friend of she didn't fact have that she didn't fact have that in terms of the issue of like the matter of law that the brief does state that the the the issue of law here is whether or not  removal with a situation of exceptional extreme unusual hardship and the government doesn't make an effort to distinguish the case that we have here and in the racine is case and so our position is had no viable way to survive short of of the their single mother staying in the united states and our position is that centrally in terms of like providing care  single but the father is sort of functioning as a as as a single father in terms of in terms of support and the other issue that was brought up by the government was this issue of whether or not  the respondent will bring his guatemalan child back to guatemala with him should he be removed there's no evidence suggest that she has any legal right to be in guatemala she has no guatemalan visa she is not a citizen of what a mile or so you know regardless of what the client wants the reality is that he has no way of getting her to guatemala because she has no she has no legal status in guatemala and the government doesn't address thank you thank you were to take the case sundered five minutes we try to get you a decision as soon as we can