and she said for each each aspect apart if she says that this particular aspect isn't extremely unusual it alone is not extremely unusual she does it and i counted ten times in her opinion so the fact that she said entirely we have the benefit here of actually seeing the judge's work we see her walk through she said and i quote considering the hardship cumulatively this court concludes that the respondents in this matter has not decision if you walk through each piece of evidence and here's what she does she gets to for example in this is on page sixty the administrators record she gets to tell mrs rodriguez's mother and father who live the petitioner's  grandparents or be separated from the grandchildren there's five of them there is what you're arguing about the placement of her statement about cumulative it's not of course if she if it had been just reversed if she'd gone through the individual factors one by one tennessee and say not only do i think that no individual factor constitutes a basis for relief nor does their cumulative impact without a been enough you had to sign a magic word i'm not asking for some magic formula i understand if she had done what i just described in other words gone through the individual factors first and then talked about cumulative would that have been enough if she hadn't if she hadn't told us for each of familial burden on the adult respondent lack of support from the children's father the united states and since children are unfamiliar unfamiliarity with spanish lawful residence in this country and it goes on the consummate lack of family in mexico  combined to render the hardship in this case well beyond that which is normally expected that's that's the cumulative analysis it's taking everything into account together not saying here's one piece here's one piece and that's not  enough by itself here's next piece it's not enough by itself and we get to the end and sure enough well they haven't met the standard whatever the standard because each piece is been knocked down one by one but we think we understand and maybe with each one of them if they'd only occurred individually isolated they would not be a basis for granting relief or for reversing a conviction but taken to gather  different had she at the end after giving those individual factors said essentially what she did at the beginning instead of saying at the end having list of the individual for actors accordingly that's why i'm concluding with her had she not gave that up given that conclusion to the individual factors without mentioning anything about it can learn history either now considering them cumulatively as i do there probably would have been enough size for them but if instead of saying now instead of considering them cumulatively you listen individually and then  accordingly because of all these individual factors so it is to some extent your answer to your johnson's i would assume would be that the place for him is a considerable part of the  graphical error she grants for me you know she grants to leave but i assume she meant to say not and may not be the immigration judge it may be the transcriber but the basis for her if she does she says accordingly the quarter concluded that the exceptional stream any of the harshest entered has and i assume there should be a not been established but we know now she is now five pages into this discussion and we know how she did it and she did it wrong so i think i think we can see the errant sure just cause if she had got to the end said now in the sum it all up and talk about everything and take it all into account that would be a different case which the we have no jurisdiction to review this the discretionary decision self well we do have jurisdiction to review a legal question what is the legal question here the legal question is whether you use the right test and that's a legal question of the kind of test that would be reviewed to know both here if it came up out of a out of a district court whether a district or just use the right right if you'd simply gone through the individual factors and denied relief we would not be your position with the she didn't consider the cumulative impact of of these hardships and that's legal or correct simply a statement a statement of the standard and if she serves a standard is cumulative and then went on and list of the things and didn't really apply that to this this is a more difficult case because she  case where this court knows to be out that the the correct reasonable standard under sokolow and says it doesn't need to tell you circumstances the supreme court said well you know that we look beyond simply what's said at the beginning and they look at how the reason when this in the factors were were actually considered in the opinion so i think that there is some supreme court precedent that would say you look beyond just the just that opening recital of the of the standard good morning john williams on behalf of the government isn't this a pretty simple question of how you read the decision and whether you read it as sharing with the  sentence where do you find any indication that the gay give a play q well let me let me just step back for one second trotter in just in just address this point first of all apply the the test your honor is applying the statute to the facts and circumstances don't you have to disbelieve her statement  considering that my hardship cumulatively comma this quirk concludes that the respondents in this matter have not established that removal would result in extreme and unusual hardship my question is don't you have to disbelieve the content of that statement to conclude that she didn't apply the standard yes ok now to go back to my question is there anything other than that which you may whatever you want to do with it you might be kinder than good think she's lying you might think she was going through some kind of formula but my question was other than i have statement is there anything in the opinion yes look at if the fourth paragraph the last paragraph on page fifty eight hardship to the applicant himself may not be considered unless it affects the hardship to a qualifying relative and considering the hardship to a qualifying relative it's it is clear that that there is not a legal question here that she is established what the law is understands what the law as it is following the law  yes they're there it's several things it's not just in our opinion but it's throughout the record she listens to two eight to their answers i think you know there's nothing in the opinion yes said they're qualified relatives on page fifty nine in this matter consisted of the respondents mother the female respondents to lawful permanent residents and their five us children she's looking at the immigration judges looking at and  goes and your honor what what this what this case is about is it boils down to the petitioner claim all these arguments are a claim that the immigration judge abused their discretion if the court and that was not presented before the immigration judge it was waived it was not present it on appeal to the board in the appeal brief to the board the appellant petitioner says the immigration judge did the immigration judge follow afridi's there is no question from the petitioner that there was the wrong law applied or that there was a matter or question of statutory construction and petitioner conceded that  she has laid out the proper law in cancellation of removal what the petitioner is doing here is basically saying and we didn't like the outcome she the immigration judge abused their discretion and  they're now asking the court to consider that and the court cannot who represent the things of i don't know the i don't know the attorney there but there was an attorney  who there were several attorneys ultimately one held the hearing and the name is in the records and presented the evidence there were no objections raised that your honor is not following  you wish to have represented so they were represented they did not raise these questions in fact they were allowed to present all of these witnesses before the immigration judge and in effect of us as none may now how parents of both the wife and the husband as well as all of the children were as reinhart's point is really very simple and it does you no good to not recognize it and it's simply this when the a announces her for this machine this announces her decision there's not an opportunity for the petitioner counsel to stand up and say your honor you're wrong about what you just said because you made a legal error there's no opportunity to do that right now and it doesn't grow the government's position to admit that fact no and that's why that's why i raised the point that that was not raised to the board on appeal because that is indeed that's a fair argument that talking about it not being raised at the i j a level is not a good idea if the and and looking at this case as a government of state it boils down to one where the petitioner has has done a grand job at nit picking areas and claiming an abuse of abus discretion listen if we were here about abuse of discretion this case would not of then calendared for argument ok so it's not about that the question is whether the i j a made a legal error and your hon r in five minutes and ten seconds beyond your allotted time you seem to have exhausted the defense of that position anything more you need to say about it i would i would just  i would just note that and this instance the the immigration judge file followed the correct legal standard and that even in the petition is proof that question was not framed properly and such this court last year is fiction to consider and i would ask the court to dismiss the second point is you can waive the government can waive this type of exhaustion argument you can't waive the jurisdictional requirement you file a brief with the be a petition the petition did that you can waive issue exhaustion because it's not and i would point the court to a case exactly about this issue recently from the second circuit called song the united states and that that for sixty one f third one zero one and it's a quite a lengthy opinion that addresses precisely this issue and hold that issue exhaustion is a wave of was going to lead by the government when it's not in the respondents for economists who happens to have a case to answer that question when the government didn't mention the issue before the argument the exhaustion it occurred to right and give a copy to the government counsel thank you you thank