three simple issues the first is the jurisdictional question because mrs fernandez was deported under a statute that is not a statute denying this court jurisdiction and she moved to reopen under a regulation that is not  cases a two or three paragraph decision sort of repeating the facts and giving it boilerplate one or two cents conclusion that she has met the standard is a cursory and generalized opinion and regardless of whether substantively the board could have reached that conclusion it's an abuse of discretion and has to be remanded and finally the board also violated due process for the same reasons it provided no discussion of the immaterial distinction because i don't think that that was certainly the only basis for the decision in that case i don't think it was any basis for the decision ourselves certainly that was the facts in that case but the court certainly didn't say that and certainly didn't bas acted as if at least i had heard evidence harsh i understand there was not a previous hearing but the da had heard evidence of hardship had improperly failed to consider it and had abused its discretion by writing talking about the chance to get at least one shot at this before the nation's i don't think that that was that was certainly the sole reason for the court's opinion the court wanted to leave open a last you know line of defense in case it would be a complete decision what if the just does something ridiculous doesn't even write an opinion or says something that's the opposite of what's true this court should have the right to review that this at least provides one small safety valve for the court i think congress certainly as an alternate but as i mentioned if the court is going to decide this case i understand from immigration counsel that this decision is going to have a major effect on the visa determination so this case is not moved by any means but certainly if the court would like to wait that i'd like to reserve the rest of my time for a bottle thank you evidence presented demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that their qualifying relatives would suffer hardship in connection to mrs fernandez removal that is so extensive and uncommon as to be extremely and exceptionally unusual  indeed a judgment regarding the granting of relief under the discretionary component of twelve twenty nine b cancellation of removal and key to argument are two factors and that the underlying determination w a regulatory or special requirement that that the evidence wasn't new that it wasn't previously available that the board's determination in this case was based upon the substance of the release thought and the substance of which was already whether it might have changed now i think in this situation we can look to the substance of the board's decision itself and determine on its face that you know the board clearly consider the new evidence and as we move on to the next asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction over the motion to reopen and her case because the i g below had not considered her application for cancellation of removal and had not made a hardship determination because at that time she had no sometimes i'm trying to get your position exactly in her situation nobody had ever made a judgement about cancellation from over she had never apply for it was no judgement there was no way that it was reviewing that judgement was not man had ever been me in current because her husband is an l p r and not a u s citizen it may be four or five years before her visa becomes available if there are no questions close to getting their visa if they do they may not so it certainly makes sense to hold off certainly and so would they make that decision i just wanted to address two points briefly first of all my posing councils effect conceded that this court has jurisdiction over the regulation portion of a motion to reopen and she contended that it doesn't have jurisdiction over at the substantive determination but we already know that that's true the motion to reopen asked is there substantive decision and as the court noted it in the previous case of course at that point if the board to follow that satisfy this obligations writes a real opinion discusses all of the evidence and offers some analysis and decides that she has not met the standard