fact review my next questions of law and fact as a let me i hate to do this but let me just correct and say we took note of the fact that the supreme court has a decision which seems to indeed be a question of law not that it always is a question of law even if the only dispute is how to apply discretion that's what leads to my principal question here which is what rule supreme court's framework to see whether it's implicated sure your honor there are actually two legal areas in the st one that i was point is relating to good moral character as you just mentioned we stated in our brief that the immigration judge looked at the which is outside the ten year period correct your honor is that the basis for your argument that the immigration judge used the incorrect statutory period it's part of it your honor however the immigration judge this is to be a failed to follow its own precedent as such the analysis of good moral character was incorrect what precedent what be a precedent did the i j a or the board of immigration appeals fail to extreme hardship unless we were to agree with you on good moral character if we give them the government has argued the only proper thing to do would be to send this back to the board to give them the st shot at hardship because we don't make these decisions we review them you're correct judge what they did to be a good stop a good moral character has got one of the four  merits arguments i just i don't know how we get across the bridge even to be talking about the extreme part shipped unless i mean certainly if you're making an argument i hope you agree with me on good moral character and i realize there's going to be more to say on hardship and so it's not a frivolous reman to the board or something but there's very little that would properly before this court on the alternative grounds because you sort of went on everything in order rebuttal you know you have three seconds mr hogan good morning may please the court as the panel is already you know didn't discuss them fortunately for the sister in this respondents testimony and she for summarized the testimony of the respondents wife and then in less than a page she says the respondent is not established that he's a person of good nor a character and on the nd second  page page seven of her opinion she she here refers directly to during the ten year the during the tenure during the ten year period and then in the next paragraph she summarizes why she's concerned he doesn't have great good moral character said during the ten year period so what am i missing that she goes beyond the ten year period in considering his criminal history including the doesn't have good moral character well it appears th board's concern was that she talked the way that the immigration judge's decision is structured it does look like she will be on the ten year period but again that doesn't it's not fatal to the agencies isn't it this case because the board take points just that he was saying in a sense there were some extenuating circumstances that the family wound up at the park his wife had drawn over driven over she was sick somebody had to get them back and said he was the one who didn't know he shouldn't have he wasn't arguments there you know mr hogan brings up true points that you know the over the petitioner was driving without an interlock device he did receive a dui after he was let go from