of the brief i look at your brief if i'm looking at the right brief it's only seven and a half pages long it only cites a couple of cases in the c f r provision and would be i said that they were ruling on and that's was what the i j a discussed and if we if we are to believe what the board said in their ruling they looked at the merits meaning they examined the case and didn't just summarily dismiss the appeal because you had judge basically talked with the respondents hardship respondents hardship was not the issue in this case it was the qualified relative the husband and the five children were jealous points made in the brief that you were trying to say yes your honor and they were the ones that were rejected why that was part up in the initial brief was because they did judge seem to have penalized the respondent for having for having a child during the proceedings or while she was in proceedings the other sponsor catholic and it seems that the judge was penalizing them for having more children and we believe that was should have been a non issue something that should not have been fancier but you go back a step earlier and tell would like i just have one actual question with respect to some of her reasons for not finding a hardship was the notion that the mother would be able to enter the us on an expedited basis on her i want thirty the titian and i was wondering whether that petition of and well established black letter law after required equities are not given the stain weight i want any of your actor acquired equities cases cases where one is considering the equity to a child as opposed to the a spouse who has a conscious decision whether to marry someone who is illegal because to a child who doesn't really have that choice well you're absolutely right and he did so harshly but actually as a six month old and as the judge found responsibilities or a violation of her responsibilities i don't think violated got to take the responsibilities necessary to make sure that before she put herself in that produced predicament i'm having a s citizen child so the question is how does the child feel right now how does the alien feel am i right about that well yes but the child was five months old at the time of the hearing so it was an emotional separation that any fact would have been separated from his mother and that's not sexual an extremely unusual again the immigration judge used terms that she should not have but there was no  and it was all legally based in black letter law her immigration judges reliance on the notion that the wife could get an i one thirty petition that that would be expedited that you'd only be in mexico for a short time and then about the judges clearly consider all of the factors that are required when he said he didn't consider the hardship to the children or the father and judge thomas said what do i do with the language i'm  you look at the human children who are looking at different language you're looking at the language home page for you know yes in which it talks about their appears to be emotional issues tied into it as well as financial and you're right thank you  husband in light of the separation of the mother from the family household and then he goes on there appears to be emotional issues side into it as well as for example is the immigration judge talking about the impact of separation on the children yes and i'm just wondering about that considering the cumulative hardship to the husband as well as all five of the children even the one who perhaps should not have been born one would not discount the hardship on that person one when she talked about the last child said you know this is not this is again the concept legal consequences of choices you made not a moral judgment and when she talks about the children she talks about all the just try to be efficient with our time how do we even have jurisdiction to look at this if we look at this transcript and we see ok there's a discussion of extreme hardship here like clear that again a full fair hearing was not and and there was no neutral magistrate it seems ok but to get there to make sure i understand what you're saying to get there we have to conclude on this record that the immigration judge never considered the hardship on the children and the husband to find it in process violation yes your honor and i believe if i don't buy your premise if i if i read the record differently than you're doing me to read it then the proper issue that we don't have jurisdiction to decide by calling it a due process violation what if we if that the immigration judge did consider the issue where is the due process violation to permit us to nonetheless reexamine regarding the due process we're going to we're looking at a neutral magistrate that would probably go under the equal protection violation if there is a bias by the judge she was she was discriminated against regarding not having again having additional children during the proceedings your honor and regard it regarding again discretion it's addressing whether there was an analysis and no  groups really done if it's in the transcript the judge already made it basically already made a decision that the trials were happy in the united states i believe on the records in the record she actually prevents her counsel from continuing to speak for the children she states that the children are happy in the united states they're carrying the flag publicly hard to hard to understand your argument that they farmer i can understand the argument that it's not reevaluating the weighing factors but it's the failure to weigh a required factor of a hardship to the father and that's a matter of law i understand that i don't understand your argument that you failed to consider the hardship to the children and why you keep insisting that when you have an argument it's either good or bad that it's an er if she's been in the united states for more than ten years there's a ten year bar they have to submit another waiver for that again those are just questionnaire waivers you know they're not a black letter last think if you show this you will come back again that's discretionary