petition to this court really raises only one issue and one request and that is when the board of immigration appeals denies the petition for hardship exemption to u s citizen children under the exceptional extremely unusual hardship standard that applies its own standards and does so in a discernable way all the case law on all the arguments simply come down to that one request in this case the indisputable but the immigration judge applied a standard stated and applied a standard in his opinion and that opinion was later affirmed by the board of immigration under the  thousand so that to require us minor children to show the hardship to them would be unconscionable is an extreme extreme of a standard and the immigration judge in that opinion applied that very standard and  quoting cases from the first circuit for example the silver case the government argues that the alvarez's informing the board of immigration appeals in their briefs that this that the standard was actually that the hardship to the average children did not have to become unconscionable did not exhaust the issue and as we pointed out in our briefs that is contrary to the ninth circuit precedent on that the requirement to show exhaustion this court has correctly recognize that the policy and the point of the exhaustion doctrine is simply to allow the board of immigration appeals to pass on the issue into a correct its own mistake we submit that if it's a standard this is not a si issue the standard that tast to be applied is the very beginning the cornerstone of the analysis that will follow even if the average this had not brought it up on appeal and we don't want to arguing that even if that the children would have to suffer unconscionable hardship now if it is true they could have gone on for pages and wrote x a jesus on the subject but as we pointed out my brief this is not required the here whenever a hardship exemption is denied by the b i in these situations it's horrible situations where the children are the chill the parents are plying on behalf of the hardships of their children if the i e denie that it puts an awful choice in the family virtually always either the children yes that's right that's right and as a matter of precedent the parents saying that that will that that is is accepted as the fact of the case as a general legal matter in this case for example if the choice is still not a good one either that in every case either the parents will be separated from the children and the children remain behind in the united states or these children for example here will be forced to leave the home leave the only home leave ever known these again are teenagers who have grown up in the united states and all were requesting is that the ira apply their own standard now i would i would say that the i would say yes because the only error in the opinion was not simply the unconscionable standard that would apply now if the result is as a result of the unconscionable standard beginning the entire opinion  opinion was not correct it would be back up on appeal again and that would be an issue in itself i wouldn't i would encourage the court however to look at the discern ability issue itself  decision from the federal trade commission or the f c c where the where the judge or the administrative law judge gets to the legal analysis the very heart of the decision which this court would look at and there are so many bracketed indiscernible conditions in mexico upon return he didn't look unconscionable now don't know your my reading as their grades to the board of immigration feel very brief argued entirely that the discretionary determination was incorrect because they did show the hardship in that immigration judge did not consider court has said that exhaustion needs to give the board needs to alert the board as immigration appeals to the issue so that they can resolve correct errors and that you case be reminded to the board of immigration appeal so that the board can determine these issues in the first