that oral argument is the last pastor and for the last kiefer you know saying things that you overlook so that's why i'm opening with that in fact judge rogers i want to say that score to says that the board must and nouns decisions and inside of it it relies on two unpublished decisions that precede a mazola that say the board must excuse the white explicitly rule on the motion and here there was no announcements of what the decision was on the three member motion no acknowledgement of the motion and it was actually a contested on opposed motion so in super surprising because normally the board says you know what and b and use and relies on cases saying you must be explicit that that is the party presses i once had a key piece in this court called ward versus holder where there was a dispute about the standard of proof of proof and there was an early case that had a high standard to subsequent published decisions had a different lower standard and i came before the court and they said you know if the original case is the right one and then that that's what  were two published decisions with the lower standard that was the high so here's the same thing but early as case says that that the standard is that that there has to be an announcement and explicit announcement of decision which didn't happen here about you know general country conditions and for that which it would best be words words of the lawyer in my brief about country conditions that they were going to accept those because there discretionary you're complaining that it wasn't adequately explained as to why the ministry of nose not in place if if if the taking of notice in the st place supposed to abuse their discretion it's the way that i read the decision if there was one single reason why it was in the right and that was because the country report was it given a physical copy now the next set is says there have been trouble put my finger notice it's incumbent upon the respondent to submit any additional supplementary evidence in support of a remand that they wish to consider they haven't done this without kind of tweaking you for doing not doing something formal they don't use the word stable but the four but then they say and it's just one sentence but it says moreover it doesn't say there are four and says moreover the response claim of general conditions of violence and crime is insufficient here's though you didn't submit it properly but you know we know how to read these things and it's not sufficient to support agreement which it sure appears is not given the strict standards that the board gives to cancellation of removal i can see how they could say that fairly some early exactly it's an individual this guy is not is not going to get his his his treatments that are only available in the united states or something like that is the kind of thing you need exactly so that most of my country conditions really go real country conditions in the main trial but the mr murray has made very moving testimony about personal tragedies that happened till his uncle cruise you know having two children kidnapped and then his own goal one having his side until he only talked about personal personal stories so the only there was no general country conditions in the record of the trial so then i introduced co saying it's a general condition if it's a general condition it's hard to be something that's unusual or hardship it's no because i wasn't saying it was that i'm saying that the records show that it was personal to his family and then i said that there's new evidence like for example be travel the trap the new travel warning for mexico raised the alert ahead of the alert for u s citizens and there are six u s is in minor children said reconsider travel weak argument to deal with that in one sentence you may disagree with either that they should have said more or that is that it's in fact a persuasive argument rather than a weak argument but i don't see how you can say that it was so strong that they're share in the brief by your tourney of record and we are not going to take that attorney of record spirit naked assertions without corroborating evidence that is how i read the more over asylum you just don't have jurisdiction to review those things and if you don't have jurisdiction to review them you can review an order deciding not to reopen the previous decision  no it's not because the judge found that there was nothing in the record to support that the kids might get kidnapped or might become like drug carrying coins for that just new evidence for the same bas crime and conditions of crime and somewhere they're going to go where they only and where they can make a living when their family is exceptionally large family most i mean most families in the us don't have seven children and they you know that six other right there is so it's a lot of elements together especially bad for them because there's more of them to of law they fail to do so and i such dismissal of the petitions appropriate to any arguments and the alternative in case we find that there is jurisdiction or are you make any arguments in the alternative in case we disagree with you on the do stand and that there is no jurisdiction based on the fact that not only just the over there underlying cancellation denial but also of must remain because it is the same hardship ground which the court would have jurisdiction over but it is i think it's important to note that the evidence is about what happens in mexico the fact matter is the immigration judge made a finding that it's unclear if the children even call fine relatives would even go back to mexico so the relevance of this evidence on top of the fact of what was discussed about country conditions aren't really w nature of whether or not they would go back so i think my point going back to my point this discussion of the country conditions evidence is is seems kind of tangential in the fact that it's unclear if they'd even go back so whether that documentation would be relevant is i think part of it may have been it at the end of the day they did in addressing well that paragraph was about that documents of a suit for us addressing the administrative notice and then ultimately indicated moreover that this evidence here before says insufficient and i have not going to step into what the board was thinking but i think it goes back to that this is the same hardship claim it's a because they did a country of what was stated earlier this fear of the violence and conditions in mexico was in fact raise previously in part of the initial consideration and in considering yeah yeah i understand that's the argument i think from based on our reading of it is that it's the moreover it would address the agency or to me kind of consider the country conditions the board considered it and just simply concluded that they didn't need the heavy burden of demonstrating the opening was think based on the language of the board i mean i admit that it's not as clear as it could be but indicating addressing the evidence in the opening statement their opening line of that paragraph addressing this is the evidence they submitted we will note that there was they weren't submitted as they were not attached as there as the regulations require for motions to remain and and then ultimately say moreover the seven this claim is insufficient to justify reopening to sorry matt for further consideration so i think there was a sufficient consideration here by the board and ultimately concluding that the petition didn't meet their burden to justify remained and but we can't really but we should therefore from on the legal issue or we should determine that that doesn't raise a legal issue and therefore we're going to decide i've i've been struggling with that i'm not entirely sure that i think you get to the same result because ultimately the the damage was insufficient it or it's the same hard to ground and the fact that that it's  or wasn't and then they might reach the merits and then say we don't have jurisdiction so it could be something along those lines but also me the same conclusion would be extend it was legal it's correct and to extent it's not legal it's not review yes  in regard to the request for a three judge panel would you agree that we do have jurisdiction over that issue and that that therefore we should deny that portion of the petition rather than dismiss i mean you i had inspiration in terms of whether the country report had to be us actually physically submitted and all that and it was wrong to the saddam matter think that i wasn't relying on a specific case i was basically relying on the absurdity of saying that i downloaded this from your website and now you're telling me that you know you don't you don't know anything about it you know so but you know here i i wish i had this hatched it but i think that it was an abusive detective that the use of discretion not to take notice and also how do they if you're saying that they more their part they explicitly d said that they were not taking mistreated notice i'm going to believe what they said explicitly so i think that ok then ok the other thing in terms of jurisdiction about new facts or whether and has just  you know maybe these are not new facts there is a present decision a berto roache us which says that you have distinction in cancellation cases over over the facts that are material so even if you say and i think that i actually had more than one case like that i don't know who the other the other names also in terms of whether judge clay you asked me you know can't they just live live somewhere else in mexico that's the safest place in mexico i remember  that there i remember reading a b a unpublished decision where they actually overruled the judge who said they could move somewhere else and i will try to get that this and try to locate it and try to get that decision to you as a showing that