has been living in a night eight hundred and thirty one years and it's the married father of three u s born children unfortunately at this time he that risk of being removed from the united states and separated from his family even thirty one years ago when he was only fifteen years in los angeles he was arrested by the ins officials who would now be called border patrol agents near the texas mexico border and before his release in november rd he was directed unfortunately after learning about the deportation orders his wife had some serious health issues she was diagnosed with type two diabetes and the family was busy taking care of that medical condition they were permit in the files where he was seeking work authorization bit based on the residency application can i believe represent two thousand and four so he was a constant contact with different attorneys but he was able to get the pronounce it you can please correct me and tell me how to say a status and that's when he learned about the deportation order and he relied on the attorneys that were helping him take the correct action to help him resolve the situation now not sorry he would have known that he could have turned himself in we just relying on his attorney that into consideration and just to be i didn't conclude we have to conclude the c b i abused discretion and he could do that if he absolutely didn't consider the evidence but we can't tell from this opinion whether it considered the evidence and rejected it or not but there are there is no mention of these affidavits which will be critical evidence in this regard in the decision the b i simply says we have reviewed the evidence of record and affidavit don't automatically result so that's why it's hard to find abuse of discretion here because as long as the court considers it you can snub dictated outcome isn't that correct judge it were  there not dictated outcome but due process would mandate that the board has an obligation to actually consider the evidence and call made a decision on they could say that despite your allegations in this fight the af likely than not yes they could certainly say that but within the parameters of the court's precedent tales you know if the affidavit or without evidence for april there's no reason not to believe that today with then there was a reason she was responsible for the mail a better job she failed to give it so if she had received it would she put in the she did not but had she been received if she failed to give it to them and being fifteen years old he couldn't independently ascertain whether he had a hearing to go to or not he was reliant on an adult caretaker and she told him that there was not nothing in the mail for nowhere to be than he would have reasonable conscious barriers to fear and that if she was not addressed by the b cross or failing to pay it out alone could be enough so even a notice was legally proper was saying that his household member the main person responsible the household failed to notify him and sorry the motion and address of the issue how do we know that the board considered the evidence before it i'm reading the opinion well because the board  just hard to tell that they they really consider this issue of non delivery especially with the focus on the right address correct but there is a  looked at those and i still think it's more likely than not that the postal service deliver the mail if you like it usually does while you're on the board did cite to the motion  but a alone is not an exceptional circumstance it follows that with age is not a reasonable cause for simply showing up there cannot be a blanket rule that persons fourteen  that because the because the petitioner knew that he needed to correct any mistakes and notify you of the correct address it was on him that he didn't get it if it was mailed to the wrong address this is not a long address situation at all we don't know if there's wrong ad which we just know that either he received it any not telling the truth or not remembering or he didn't receive it was not an issue about the address or the problem is we're not dealing with whether they can it is the argument we're dealing with whether they weighed the evidence maybe only thing they specifically addressed this whole issue of who was the guardian and was addressed to the right thing not not the issue of there's actually there's some evidence he's produced but the male just standing there i just really  they address that issue is the board's obligation to engage with the evidence last because this is the nd time it was being asked to reopen based on non delivery no i understand here is more evidence he got the democrats but they did  about a decade earlier say no it was delivered we think it was delivered and now the decade later they're having the same issue is that less in there than the specificity they need to