establish good moral character to your presence in the united states and that of qualifying relatives would suffer exceptional in extremely unusual hardship in the event that that the applicant is not allowed to remain in the united states to be successful likelihood that statutory requirements have been satisfied this is the petitioner does not need to show him clue simply that he's eligible he does not need to establish absolute certainly certainty only that there  ignored by the board in their decision there are four u s citizen children involved in this case there is a step mom who is eleven there was a stepdaughter eileen who is thirteen there is dual so who is eight and mikael who is two these children are  would possibly be rendered homeless and hungry if he had to leave because petitioner could not provide from them for them from guatemala whatever they were going to go to a lot of all i can tell from lopez's affidavit whether the children would accompany him to guatemala he were removed or whether they would stay well we we have not really established that my position is that whether the children accompany him or stay here they would suffer horrendously whether they lose his obtaining discretionary relief we have to show that the of the applicant was denied the opportunity to present the application in his st hearing which is exactly what happened in mr lopez this case he could not is an act that is ultra the euro's and resulted in a due process violation the board's function is to review the judge's decisions not to step in to make those decisions if we were to agree with you on this issue that there was an potentially could but underpaid a doubt that the decision is quite clear that and i and i believe that the lord even in this case itself agreed that he has most likely already shown ten years but it might be it might be opportune to to hold it until chavez decided so concluding the issue of forty two b eligibility it is my position that petitioner had to show reasonably that it is reasonably likely that he will mee was no there was no government attorney assigned to this case for the longest time oh no we did not turning to respond an application for withholding of removeable it is it is my position that he suffered the most egregious persecution when he was repeatedly systematically regularly and humanely being by his father when he was only a very young child the father beat him and the mother to exert his dominion over them actually mistreated them because he viewed the master who as his own property this court has held that physical violence amounts to persecution and has also her help that age is an important consideration when determining that when when the harm and the quality of harm when in your honor persecution that contact that the conduct that brings on violence that applicants for asylum suffer it is always to a certain degree in criminal conduct it i conduct and makes it makes it persecution so the conduct itself is not it is it is not very is not very different it is the way that this criminal conduct of beating a small child that rises to the level of circuit of court of appeals which has held that family is a quintessential particular social group so it hasn't just all of that was a finding that was made after after many years and many significant considerations of evangelizes to bring people to the church in his community upon his remove to guatemala so this is something that he has been doing for years and he has credibly testify that he would continue that work and this work and what it would be and direct it would be in direct opposition to the gangs agenda the gangs we have to understand are are spread throughout guatemala they have they are a very powerful entity their president throughout  inject just mention that the clock which keeps running over time by two minutes forty seconds and i'm going to give you a little extra time for a battle even though your time's up but we need to bring your initial argument to a close so the government can say it's part and it's for speaks about the children and the fact that he is this all i actually support and the wife is not making anything to begin amount of money the affidavit says all those things and i don't see anywhere where the agency address that  evidence of that financial hardship that the board you know looked at it and compared it to its precedents and said this is just a generalized conclusory claim of hardship and that the board is held to a very deferential standard here unless it's acted acted arbitrarily or irrationally or contrary to law then the law is that the court should defer to what the board looked at and determined the board recognized of and let me just say that i'm also interested in whether mediation can lead to a resolution because there's i think as the government's argued the to draw persecution from the gangs or criminals i see my time's up so unless there are any other questions we're giving the additional extra time so if you need another two minutes