filings that we are receiving this year and so we appreciate cancels willingness to be here we have as you know many more cases calendar for argument than we ordinarily hear in regular calendars here this morning we will proceed to hear the cases in the order that they are listed i think the day she has done in the states in  which is quite strict fire surgery which at the time of the hearing still bothered him and he was unsure at that point if he was going to require further surgery upon review of the evidence the immigration judge denied his claim pointed out that the eye problem was really her only real concern but in noted that the surgery which she had received would be unavailable in mexico however i didn't think that and were in the record  within mexico that such an operation would be if it would be unavailable to him in mexico he would not if he were in mexico without such insurance without the resources available to him in the united states he would not be able to receive reading of the record which indicates that the condition had been successfully treated so clearly not evident the record is for the careful reading which is due process w our position is not merely that the b i e s decision is ultimately incorrect but rather that it is based upon a reading which cannot be the result of a careful thorough reading of the record with that if we ever help that  not review it adequately the court determined in that case that there was a presumption that the court that to be i did review it adequately accordingly they were not in a position to determine that the due process violation had occurred as such because they could not directly review the hardship violation or excuse me a hardship determination that there was no i the they lack choice fiction in this case the presumption is clearly by the by the  duran's condition had been successfully treated mr duran himself testified that the conditions don't bother him and it was unclear whether or not he was going to require further surgery there is no indication at any point in the record that the condition was still treated or excuse me of wessex specially treated accordingly such a conclusion cannot be based upon a thorough constitutionally sufficient reading of the record concern it would no longer be something which is a problem our reading the use of the past perfect tense indicates that there is no further treatment required and if we read it the way you read it you're saying used in arriving at that decision the court can determine whether or not a constitutional constitutionally sufficient process has been given to mr go on in reaching that ultimate conclusion honor please the court my name is jennifer life fighting on behalf of the respondent the court should dismiss both of mr grant duran's petitions for review because he's seeking to challenge the discretionary no extreme hardship determination in the court lacks jurisdiction to in order to try to discern whether or not it is a due process well i think that the court can certainly look at his the challenges that he makes and determine because he hasn't shown that the board did not review the record and in fact the record shows that the court did review the entire record in this case he says that the board made an erroneous statement that his eye condition had been successfully treated and that wasn't in iraq or it and in fact it was on the record and it came and came through petitioners direct testimony at page one thirty eight of the record the petition was asked were those operations successful in correcting the i problem you had answer yes the surgery helped me a lot and the only place that the court the board rather could have found that answer is by reading the transcript and by reading the petitioner struck testimony so  court were to find in favor of the petitioner that the board did not review the entire record the board would have to conclude or this court rather would have to conclude that on page one thirty eight of the transcript that the board read lines ten through twelve which certain extent yes and it's the government's position with respect to second petition for review that the court last jurisdiction over that because he's again challenging an extreme hardship determination that was the basis of the board of the base that's the basis of the bo this court in regards to a motion to reopen one looks at the underlying people of haitian in order that the deportation order is one which is not based on one of the grounds for which there is no jurisdiction usually criminal grounds then this court has jurisdiction mr go arounds underlying deportation orders based on his entry without inspection there is no bar to review of deportation orders entered based on injury without hearing hearing before the office or something like that then we'd have a due process question but what i still can't understand why the mile of due process   the first petition for review our evidence is simply this that the b itas decision is so clearly are basically unsupported by the facts by the record th