the issues before this court can be reduced who errors by the judge in not allowing evidence that is material for the case  admitted mainly the testimony of the witnesses the qualifying relatives children the qualifying relative parents of the respondent and in that the level required by reality because the parents had not been shown to be solely dependent on the respondent the judge missed a whole range of items of evidence which were submitted indicating beginning with the fact that the parents legal resident and us citizen had been listed in the income tax records of the respondents since nine hundred ninety that is twelve years before so that will show a total dependency on them the judge did not take into account that it had been submitted on the record that the parents lives are the respondents home that the respondents were relying on elect to look for medical hardship in the three united states citizen children ages fourteen twelve and eleven but the judge neglected to  where there was plenty of medical evidence beginning with the fact that all five qualifying relatives are under medical insurance coverage emanating from judge also neglected to see or comment on the psychological report which was submitted and noted into the record  just don't mention at all the fact that there respond this mother suffers from chronic migraine headaches which require regular prescription medication so these are the the other area that the judge made is that he did not take into account all the evidence that he should have under the existing standards there are three standards start in developing hardship we can't assume for the sake of argument that if somebody has which we do in this case sufficient elements under a matter of andersen that should take care of the threshold question  basic hardship there are two other sources which can contribute and we argue do can contribute to the ex the hardship that is required under more than one is the fifty years after president case the scribing what it means to say exceptional and extremely unusual hardship the away not only from the qualifying relatives his children his parents but three more generations of family in the united states three generations of family also matched by the three generations of family of his wife all those issues the judge did not take into account we argued before this court that he should have that all those three sources of hardship should have been taken into account and he did not evidence is belied by the record i would direct the court to the following pages of the administrative record at pages one sixty five and sixty eight one seventy eight one eighty nine and one ninety two to one ninety four where the say first by i appreciate your brief petitioner because that sort of helps pull things and so this should take less time for that reason the immigration judge later stated that it seems to me this was a very complete trial so i think that the direct testimony came you completed in about a half an hour the petitioners response was that i understand the judge then stated ok if you get the end of that time if you get to that the end of that time and you feel that you haven't accomplished what you want to or need to do then i'm willing to consider more time if you will tell me what you wish to listen to throw their testimony but this response was very well your honor moreover when it came to the testimony of petitioners parents the immigration judge or would be receptive to making an offer as to what they would testify and petitioner responded that they would be without any kind of action or limitation on it and fact when the immigration judge asked what that offer proof would be listeners proceeded to provide that offer a proof without any hesitation nor was there any limitation or objection at that point either are a number of different where the immigration judge in his decision indicates all the evidence that was presented by petitioner and at page one thirty seven the immigration the record also belies petitioners claims he immigration judge considered family separation not only in the context of the potential separation is the family were to move to mexico and would be separated pages and the records at forty four sixty eight or seventy eight or ninety seven five twelve five nineteen five twenty seven five thirty five forty five five fifty six like sixty four seventy five seventy seven  ninety five eighty three rather the tax records actually reflect that petition parents were if they did live with him were never listed as dependent between nineteen two thousand and two to two thousand and between eighty ninety and one thousand nine hundred ninety those parents lived in mexico so to the extent that there was a hardship well that's one consideration in his reliance on the tax records but the other consideration is  that there are several family members one of which his uncle had owned the construction business this is also the brother of the parents and they're a united states citizen aunts and uncles who also have family members and though it may be averted it also reflects the record reflects that the family is cohesive and would be supportive of one another in fact the titian are actually did live with his grandparents what   he did not discuss the matter with his wife and wasn't certain in his application for cancellation he indicated that his wife and children his wife and children would come with him and then in his brief before the immigration judge he also indicated that his wife and children would come before the immigration judge and under this court's precedent and press the ins the fact that there is prosecutorial discretion in most government aid and it can have reconsider whether it really wants to do this to an american family of several generations  perhaps with some new secretaries whose jurisdiction is immigration just a new justice department it's possible that mediation conceivable you have any objection to going for mediation your honor that's something that we will take into account and however i would point out that this case has been before  the mediation office of this court and it was determined that there was a basis for resolving at this time as the immigration judge pointed out part of the consideration was the fact that there were several avenues by which the petitioner could obtain legal status and fortunately at this point there isn't yet an opportunity for him to obtain that status unless and until there is a to the court that at all times the government will take into account the circumstances to determine whether or not prosecutorial discretion may be appropriate and if it doesn't all the communications with am but if you followed the thrust of judge reinhart's inquiry about the possibility of mediation and you feel stressed in your responses the range of discretionary authority the attorney general h everyone including the government would regard as a quite unhappy situation here and the question is whether some adjustment can be made and it's in those ter question of mediation arises with a view to seeing whether the one or another of the attorney general has discretionary authorities might be brought into play listen to these considerations i'm sure that in the end they would have a good product that this is a very unhappy situation for the government as well as for everybody and mediation is just a vehicle which brings to the forefront these considerations you say the attorney general is a very busy man is going to be considering when you have a case with a mediation and you go back and say the court concerned about this case and there is a legal issue on which you might lose before a court we're going to leave your action process maybe we could consider some of these things that we're going to continue to consider anyway this is a good way to bring it to and i can't imagine why you would we will be delighted to confer with distinguished counsel on taking advantage of what we agree highly is an excellent mediation system that this court has  on the tax records from the year two thousand the record indicate that around that time the then sixty two now seventy two accuse me then seventy six and now seventy two year old gentleman was hired by respondent so that he could be placed on medical coverage that is the reason why he was included as a full dependent along with his wife from  two thousand he went to work as a sixty six year old for his son so he could get medical coverage there's a point like two to clarify before this of this court that the board has taken the exclusion and that is to be distinguished from the other more neutral words the board has chosen to mix in with in recent cases departure which is leaving the country i submit to this so now we have to add to twenty years he has reset in the united states with his family and the ten years he has to stay out that fact can and should have been considered by the judge and was not the question of whether there is sufficient proof that the children will be left behind it is naturist the children who are going to be left behind it is the elderly parents that are going to be left behind and there is no case law or not matter if he or any other case indicate that elderly parents today aged seventy two with sixty two have to sign a contract to indicate that they're going to remain in the united states and not go with the deported aliens those are exceptional in extremely unusual hardship if we had to go home and tell our kids guess what your father is going to be deported you're not going to see him for ten years and we want you to realize that this is not exceptional you have