claim was raised at the board of immigration appeals this is the issue of how the headache they're very they were very severe they caused her to vomit were not mentioned at immigration court and how the immigration judge denied the case an extreme hardship of immigration appeals and the petition at that point didn't ask david describing specifically what happened with the attorney and immigration court informed stance that affidavit to the bar and inform if we if we were sympathetic to your view what would we say that the board had done wrong when the board adopted the immigration judge's opinion so it didn't make get around right she said that they were not they were healthy but maybe she did not consider the year having to be a health problem in the context i mean when she did she did not mention that exchange you're right and i believe that had she understood cancellation and the hardship and that that these were this issue was important to her case children where they know well the oldest the one with the headache is that she must be about fifteen or sixteen now at the time of the trials about twelve i don't know off hand i can i can tell y the judge made you asked a question about one of the court can consider any documents that were part of the motion to reopen and they can't because that's not part of the administrative record under petitioner didn't file a petition for review from that decision and we started in the supreme court case is down versus i and i asked and i prayed for that proposition so the only issue before the court is the board's riginal decision  with respect to what about the hardship and constitutional issues being involved which might make those make that appeal by the hardship determination well the hardship determination is in the context of cancellation of removal which is essentially a discretionary form of relief and when we're talking about constitutional violations you have to show a liberty interest and there's no liberty interest in discretionary a cancellation of her body and person a fair hearing i'm not aware that there is i mean there is there is there is an interest in a fair hearing but when we're talking about due process violations we're talking discretionary form of relief denial of a discretionary form of relief does not give rise to a deprivation of liberty interest thereby giving rise to a constitutional violation i mean you're in the justice department so i figure you must know everything and to correct a situation like th health and she said it was fine or if the testimony had come out that the daughter was suffering from these headaches and so on with made a difference i don't think it would have there's no evidence that the daughter couldn't get medical treatment in mexico for headaches the statue refers to exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in congress specifically made that more stringent in iraq after the present that course and and to present the fact that she suffered a severe medical the severe medical problem so the existence of the problem or the national enough it means that the court could it could be reopened on th correct but my point is that the medical records themselves don't have to be in the motion to reopen because that would be proved in court if the case is reopened it's whether or not