morning ladies and gentlemen we apologize for the it's like to lay in convening court this morning judge reinhart and i are very pleased to have seen your district judge in distinguished member of our cases before this court and also pending before the board of immigration appeals if the court looks at the decision they can see that it has no individualized review or analysis of the petitioners claims and this particular case the board of immigration appeals violated the p and an individualized analysis for an alien's claims an issue decision which states reasons for denial with particulary and this particular case the board of immigration appeals simply issued a boilerplate decision without any type of individualized analysis in this case they did not cite any fact in the record they did not cite any testimony in the record or any doctrine whatsoever now at this particular case as illustrated of of the board's error in this case by issuing a yes i got the feeling that you were not not happy about please the court my name is collect winston and i represent attorney general eric holder of the respondent and that's the question here is whether mr sanchez has a colorable due process claim the answer to that question is child instead of both children i would like to address that because i think that's one of the cornerstones of petitioners argument when i thought about this i i really feel that what the court was doing what the unusual hardship for laura so there's really only one child left and that's the youngest son and i can point to the concession that efficient are made in the record to the board in his appeal reply break so the board was entirely correct in close listing on exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to one child the youngest child so there was no error here even if there on heavily as the cornerstone of his argument at the very end the the psychologist created the report and i'm referring to page one nineteen of the record with information available at this is that your suggestion that we are to accept that as a as a necessary reading of the opinion you know your honor i wouldn't i would not say that one should look at the word child to refer to children but i think the jabir and not laura and because that was what was argued to the board and the appeal briefs submitted by the petitioner to the board so it stands to reason that the board is focusing on the report was not mentioned the psychological report was mentioned by the immigration judge when he was reviewing the different exhibits that were to be included here and i and  constitutional rights of the petitioner the board stated we have reviewed the record and we agree that the respondent does not qualify the board also stated the response respondent has presented no arguments on appeal here so and any appeal brief itself is practically not what that's the prevention act that's a brief to to the board yeah so the board would have had to the judge would have had to had his eyes closed when reading constitutional issue of you know it has the petitioner in the five to process but here's there's no error there's nothing like this and there's a recent case of mendez castro is really on point there was no error there was nothing the reason the b i used the word child instead of children is because the b i never considered hardship to both children in this case again the record indicates that the petitioner has two children she testified  to one child this is something that would was argued before the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals that there was hardship to both of the children so with all due respect the counsel that contention with respect to the psychological report that is again referenced as an exhibit of before the immigration judge and of what immigration appeals now the government says this is an attempt to simply run away the facts well in this particular case the facts from never