formal documentary proof the petitioners did present oral and written evidence from employers landlords family and friends establishing continuous presence spanning the entire period at issue and there is no evidence to the contrary but if we agree with you on that point that the evidence is sufficient in the record as to the continuous presence of what happen and the question for us is is that an alternative holding or what is that statement that was made and the decision that statement is that some thought and some speculation about the that she has just discussed some of the some of the factors going to the alternate discretionary decision i mean she ends up with their questions raised issues clearly willing to discuss issues without making an alternate holding on each of those also i would note that the board of immigration appeals did have the opportunity to address and to resolve any ambiguity there may be but chose not to do survivor bring them to another terror are you prepared by any of discretionary decisions haven't been decided yet that the board of immigration appeals would remain and whether it's one judge or three judges would remain and for those initial decisions to be made by the immigration judge that it's remanded to the board of immigration appeals to have one judge decide the case again is that it was not we don't believe as a matter of due process proper for one judge to decide without opinion that it would not now be proper for  should review this case not under extreme lining procedures but again i think that the proper steps may be to have it really ended all the way back to the immigration  judge and so at that point it would be a different case down to the court and i mean that would be up to the board whether itself satisfied with what the immigration judge does for i'm prepared to decide on that basis whether it tell them don't want it again if we thought that was a remedy or whether we should just turn the back and let them make a mistake if we thought it was i don't think that there is anything stopping  question what is the effect if any about the suspended coun that's the reason you think it should have been streamlined as opposed to the fact that in your view the service was wrong on the continuous pres streamlined case where you don't tell us what the basis of this is why i think the be a felt much the same that i do respect your honor that that the decision of the immigration judge did lay out the fact that she made a conclusion regard immigration judge is that language that she does not believe that the respondents have i'm at page forty seven of the record she does not believe that the responders have made an adequate showing regarding extreme hardship it's about two thirds down the page all findings well she doesn't say that she didn't believe that they made an adequate showing this is but you didn't believe it made an adequate showing through the documents and then goes on to say their testimony is much more compelling and specific ok but then then she discusses the very bottom and then into page forty eight there's this other hardship issue that was raised where you have this concept that the father is from guatemala but both that the wife and the child are from unusual situation but the court does not believe that this by itself referring to the different look origins of the respondents or even in conjunction with the daughter's medical situation can spin searing both therefore it is no prejudiced with respect to the fact if you do find if there's an error and the judge is now assigned continuous presence there's no prejudice because there was a separate independent non reviewable finding on  discretionary decision which is court doesn't have jurisdiction i appreciate your argument if you just go down further and where you reference the conclude language is based on the foregoing however the court mu conclude that the respondents have not met the physical presence requirement of the statute and therefore will fail in their applications for cancellation of remove and it seems to me that what she did was she denied it because because of the  so if you accept that point of view which i hope the court court does overall i'd suggest that there's no prejudice found if you feel that there is error in the continuous presence argument there's no prejudice because you have this independent finding where she said that they didn't meet the hardship standard that's not reviewable by the court under the court's precedent of america terrorists and therefore there's no there's no prejudice in the fact that she may have  if we can't do the easy way and then i know you would disagree of course on the continuous presence and that's just something we have to figure out based on the record and based on the standard of review one way or the other but again if we were to disagree with you on that and say no finding on hardship but the immigration judge was wrong on the continuous presence i think and i have been asking well what we do and how does that interplay with the streamlining situation the correct position and government's view is that if the court were to take that view no because the board likely read the record the same way the government did in my in my my view by saying well there's two there's two issues here and one of them is the hardship issue and we really now once you that should not have been streamlined because you can streamline cases and what's the result was correct right but i still think it's a matter of discretion for the board to determine whether or not they would train mine another right i think i can agree with you there but but i i understand your point but if you want to take it one assumption further ok if it was improperly streamlined then the question is improperly streamlined and they screw it up then next time you can say now we're going to streamline of again that it's a case which qualifies even though we've not settled an issue it's a case qualif for full fair treatment by the board i think i think it's fair to say that if you were to take that i know that it would be a rematch and with a suggestion that the board develop the issues to understand more about the immigration judge's opinion and how the the board was and chirping the immigration judges and because it could be the boy comes back and says we considered that hardship argument to be a definite finding of the immigration the hardship claim in this case was so weak that's what makes it so understandable that the immigration judge was actually ruling on the hardship claim itself if you look at page one ninety five of the records and it's a note that the doctor allegedly signed for unusual hardship for this daughter to have to go back to guatemala when she has a skin condition but yet the evidence in the record at page one ninety five clearly shows that all it is is she has a skin condition that's now under control and i think that that's what the judge have fifty seconds but we gave your opponent a few extra minutes so we won't i just wanted to say quickly that the court does not have jurisdiction to consider hardship so noticed you know makes clear that the court can't review those type of decision so to ask the court to reject in this case because there's there's not sufficient hardship in the record doesn't doesn't make sense