petitioners motion to reopen the following three reasons first the board failed to address completely in its decision position of argument that his hardship should be considered to the extent that his son would be affected by the hardship that he himself would suffer petitioner smith's that his right to due process was violated resulting in substantial prejudice by because the board failed to provide petitioner with a full and fair opportunity to present his case first addressing the issue of abuse of discretion this court has held that abuse of discretion occurs when the board fails to show proper consideration of off factors in favor of petitioners case this court has also held that the board of use discretion when it merely gauges in cursory recitation and that such hardship would affect his united states citizen son when we read the boy's decision the court should know that there is absolutely no reference to the one and only argument presented by petitioner in his motion to reopen birth of a u s citizen child is insufficient to succeed on a claim for cancellation of the mobile and or on a section two forty eight b that argument was never raised by petitioner and yet that is the way the board characterizes petitioner's motion to reopen in its decision such merit mr excuse me mischaracterization of his motion to reopen we submit to the court resulted in a clear abuse of discretion and lastly the board failed to consider vital pieces of evidence and failing to consider the hardship to petition or the evidence that already existed in the record regarding this petitioner was completely ignored and that evidence can be related to seven points which are found in the record first is that this particular petitioner entered the united states ignored the fact that he has received his entire education in the united states and how that education in the us and a lack of education in mexico would affect the petitioner son was also completely ignored the fact that this petition has no cancellation of removal was not before the immigration judge at the time of the hearing before the immigration judge this petitioner did not have a qualifying family member therefore any hardship issues to this petitioner were completely irrelevant the time of the proceedings the only person who had a case pending before the immigration judge was the petitioners mother she was the only one at that time who have qualifying family members of this particular petition or did not these facts therefore did not become fact is pertaining to petition for the first time under section two hundred eighty became relevant because prior to that given the absence of a of a qualifying family member these factors were completely irrelevant in the context of cancellation of remov in the required hardship to his us citizen signed by virtue of an absence and a response to petition as argument we really don't know whether or not the board would have found that argument sufficient and that is my entire point in this case is that the board failed to engage in any analysis whatsoever regarding this issue and that and so therefore there's absolutely no way for us to know given the possible board decision and its reasoning whether or not the board would have found these factors here to amount to the type of factors that would likely change the outcome of the case and so there is no basis here there is one case your honor i would like to cite to which i think is important that dealt with a suspension of the partition case but as a court of the air those cases are vital to cancellation of renewal because they lay out the factors that we apply in these cases and that decision is matter of all j o and there the court found that the factors present there similar to the ones here this meet the former requirement of contending just that the the board should have granted the petitioners motion to reopen in order for the immigration judge to develop a record and determine whether or not petitioner just now qualifying family member would suffer the necessary har record it argued in the argument section this motion to reopen those with petition argue to the board which are if it should be granted because the respondent is now eligible for cancellation or move given the birth of his united states citizen child and except certain extreme and you hardship is somewhat suffer if respawn is remote that is exactly the claim that the board looked at now the board did not go into a detailed analysis of each and every argument in this case the question presented that is whether or not he could get a job how well he spoke spanish and things because it was tender years when he first came to united states however as far as addressing his claim the board did and the board found that it was  claim that his united states citizen sign would suffer hardship based on his removal and the board deny that claim as to each and every argument underlying that claim we would submit that the word should have to address about the hardship that he would suffer and that such hardship should be considered to the extent that it would affect his united states citizen child that was petition of argument and the board failed to address that particular issue because there's only  counsel further notes that the board should not be required to address each and every argument for the petitioners motion for any other motion but that was only valid petitioners only arguing petitioners only argument was that the hardship to himself should be considered to the extent that it would affect his united states citizen child and lastly your honour's here we have not argued that the titian has a due process right to discretionary relief simply that there's a due process right to a full and fair opportunity to present his case four seven four six that case has been remanded by order of the court previously ready length health care first david gest and lunch case number zero four five five eight nine zero