though she involved with a man who was twenty years old who stuck around long enough to get her pregnant and leave her with a child as she was ill equipped to care for herself as a result the parents of this of this child of the of their daughter raised the child have raised the child as if it was their own they have guardianship over the child the their daughter has also given them in written under the cancelation statute and we're not trying to part of this a petition and if you think about it in every single case there's a child that's a qualifying relative that would never be able to be petitioned for by the petitioners i e the aliens that are in removal proceedings i mean it's always a child that's a u s citizen so why would you try to follow petition for a u s citizen child i think the point is that it's a term of art with many different definitions and we're arguing that we  case for the petitioners but it still wouldn't bring them within the definition here because they're not u s citizens so of course they're not able to adopt this child and therefore complete the procedure for an orphan petition  back they need to get a waiver for it to come back in and that would that's not really feasible it's not physically on because the father of this child abandoned the child and disappeared within the first year of its life he's not considered a parent under the i and i to want to be too says that a natural father is not considered a parent to be the band of the child so that's out of the picture so if we take a look at the definition of an orphan there's two components for the determination of whether it's an orphan there's a two parent component and a single parent component where they unceasing but i think it would have to be in conjunction with we accomplish is now the cases where there is a citizen involved so that there is some i guess some consolation to the agency that the child is not going to be deported along with the parents are c because both of them were here unlawfully but if they were offered here yes that is true or not absolutely but of course they can't get here lawfully under the in the situation that they're in because it's a cancellation case simplistic approach if you don't have a child that is black and white it's over but that's the mere fact that you don't have a biological child doesn't mean that you don't have a challenge of the immigration nationality act as defined in the very many definitions of a child and want to one be issue frankly is irrelevant because even if you can somehow shoehorn this child in that definition the fact remains that the petitioners here are not the parents of that child and have not and apparently cannot adopt that child in specifically allows an adopted child to be considered a child for purposes of relief rule here but that simply hasn't happened and i would submit the court could consider the argument here had it been exhausted adopt a child from who's living abroad and bringing the child to the us for it to be adopted your child is u s citizen president in the us it simply does not fit but even if it did it again the fact remains he is not the in the first instance i believe this court does not have jurisdiction aside the orphan issue raised by the petitioners here and other to just be dismissed on that basis secondly if the court did have jurisdiction we would argue that the child at issue simply does not fit the definition of even an orphan and even if that child did that that would not render the child a qualifying relative for purposes of petitioners request to get relief in the form of cancellation of removal that being the case you statutory definition and so that case stands for the unremarkable proposition that you don't have to consider hardship to third parties other than parents thousand child we're arguing that we do meet the definition of a child so that case has nothing to do with this and furthermore under exhaustion we clearly exhausted the issue but ultimately comes down to how you define the issue at what level of abstraction to use it i mean if you look at page sixty two of the record the judge the immigration judge said and i've heard countless argument on the record there's an argument that is about the legal interpretation of what a so if we can find a way to do it there then certainly we can find a way to do it here and even if that was exhausted there still makes an exemption for sign and said that if the government is not prejudiced then there's no harm and in this case the government w on notice in our opening brief the same facts as us so i think we have exhausted the issue of course if you try if you want to find it very very very narrowly then why even bother requiring briefs when i just identify