disagree with the fact finding mission you said no good the board substitute its own fact i'm looking at the board's decision and it's however the evidence presented does not demonstrate the elevated or unusual emotional or psychological issues in other words the board looked at the record and when you look at the record what would support what in the record would support that very difficult standard and it really doesn't go to that the teacher talked about what leslie had achieved in school and what her hopes were certainly very nice young woman and then i read gather what centerpieces you would expect when the subject is or father being deported as she will likely suffer with the separation from her father and she appears to have limited coping skills which becomes the theme that she has limited coping skills and actual findings this is them to make the decision whether or not the hardship of the exceptional and extremely unusual level one more question and then i'll be quiet which kind of what i want to ask a little bit earlier which is what was the i just post to say when you say make findings predictive findings because he could say that he could say i find that she is a somewhat immature sorry but that's not good enough for standard what would you say would you even have an appeal i would i would be if i would have the same deal because the judge has not taken what our observations as to how was is that her notional conditions or psychological condition or her aspirations and school and the need that  will not be able to go to make  unmistakably shows that he believed the children would suffer both financial and nonfinancial hardship you also argue that the decision may not be a masterpiece you said but it demonstrates that the i j a considered more than economic deprivation i see that as being different than your argument today which is the i j didn't make any findings it didn't it didn't it should have made more detail things together are the logical presumption a logical conclusion that the judge believed there would be future hardship apart from pointing out that that is the way i understood your argument but did you make this argument which to me is a different argument which is you need to remain and because you can't make your own fact finding your implied fact findings in the district court didn't make  were sufficient findings or certainly sufficient for mention the record to sport what the i j a did say about non financial hardship and their drug dealing with what it is exactly that and said we'll accept all that except everything to share or present it and that just isn't enough they then have to say on the record there's not enough there to support the judgement why is it different with the b why can't license at essentially a legal matter no matter how saying that this type of hardship analysis but that they did it entirely discretion i there's no algorithm therefore there's no meaningful standard by which this court can review and therefore there is no jurisdiction which as judge phillips noted all the evidence is from years ago so essentially it would be up to the agency what to do with the case but essentially it would be sending the case back for the agency to start over and renew it of you know what kind of weather is hardship for the children how four or five years later whenever the agency gets that so nevertheless so even if this court assumes that what petitioner is saying about questions of la introspection is correct so even if this court assumes it has jurisdiction here there's simply no error in the agency's decision as owners were noting the immigration judge essentially took all of the evidence that he presented to the immigration judge and actually quoted the language included every detail in the decision based on the psychological the psychologist reports the letters from the teacher about the impact that petitioners remov have on the children and quoted that evidence cited to the record portions where that evidence is discussed and eventually took every single arguments and evidence that petitioner presented in the quoted that and the immigration judge's  decision so essentially what petitioner is saying is that because the immigration judge didn't start some of the sentences with the word accordingly and then quoting the language that therefore the immigration judge somehow analysis was wrong  missing factual findings here our position is that the agent the immigration judge's decision is explicitly clear that the immigration judge accepted those facts that decision are presented and then found that the hardship met and then when the board reviews all the hardship factors in the aggregate the noble later on appeal the board came to the opposite conclusion and so here as judge moore it's noted petitioner did argue on direct appeal after he won before the immigration judge he argued to the board that the immigration judge's decision was you know it was great it included financial factors nonfinancial factors the emotional hardship the academic performance hardship  therefore the board should agree with everything the immigration judge found and it was only after he lost before the board the st time that he'd been which has announced this included this sort of alternative missing factual findings type analysis after he left before the board and his motion to reconsider and so since the law that's been his argument that somehow the immigration judge's decision actually was the fashion to because it didn't include things like according way before it quoted regulation change the board would then review for clear error and it would have to be mad if there are missing factual findings so it is true that in matter of m h the board referenced factual findings being made in cancellation of removal cases and it did reference the hardship and even in the recent decision the matter j j g the board reference the fact that there are sometimes underlying factual findings in the hardship determination however there is absolutely no precedent from the board or any circuit court that mandates the parameters of factual findings as far as you know exactly what type of factual findings the degree of hardship etc so that's all sort of very open ended essentially the board president about cancellation of removal only requires immigration judge to identify all relevant hardship factors and then analyze in the aggregate whether those hardship factors sort of meet that threshold of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship so although factual findings might exist underlying the hardship determination there is no precedent or like that says the position i was describing it there is not there is no precedent requiring the sort of like sequential steps  act don't exist for that sort of exceptional extremely unusual hardship judgment call of the court and scribed it so for asylum to our parameters there is a legal standard that must be met there are underlying factual findings that the inversion judge must make starting that there's the sort of the algorithm or the standard that the agency is obligated to require but degrees of hardship etc but there simply is no president thing that and in fact contrary to his claim the court has argued repeatedly held that ok yes thank you you referenced i j s decision that sounded more robust by your telling because when i read it and we get to this part that we're concerned about there's really nothing there's the only thing that i see as a sentence that says if she were to accompany the daughter were to accompany her father to mexico then she would suffer significantly in school let's not even in play because she's not going to mexico here's my question j heads had done these predictive findings as your opposing counsel says were required and said if he is deported fathers deported then she won't be able to go to college she will have to drop out to help her disabled mother so that they can maintain a household her life will crumble and various ways that's my prediction based on the evidence and that's a gone up to the board could the board then say well we disagree with that predictive finding because we just don't think that there's enough in the record to support that and so we're going to dismiss that and after we dismissed that then it looks to us as though the this change should be denied well i think if the immigration judge had chosen to make these sort of far reaching predictive findings then if it was clear that it was a factual finding predicting the future then the board probably would review for a clear only because it is true that generally speaking at the immigration judge is predicting future events it's treated as a factual finding and then the board reviewed factual findings a clear  however i think the crux of the issue here is that there is no requirement that the immigration judge make these sort of far reaching predictive factual findings about sort of that the greedy or like the length and time of when it has to happen are how badly the academic effect would be except for a this is all something that petition has just sort of come up with out of thin air and said that this is the requirement but there's no precedent requiring that type of analysis  implicit the whole question is what's the degree of harm how badly will to children be harmed while others deported what is that not just part of the calculation whether there's  you know no i think yeah it's the impact of the children when the petitioners moved so here the agency considered that she her academic performance would decline at this point she was i believe fourteen so you know she had evidence showing that her school might decline you know she would be emotional she would have trouble functioning at school that's that's the evidence that she presented but she never made any arguments to the immigration judge that she would no longer be able to go to college  least not explicitly that sort of requiring immigration judges to analyze the emotional impact maybe like almost ten years down the line here i think there's no precedent requiring the immigration judge or the board to analyze the hardship sort of for the the qualifying relative the whole entire lifetime essentially you know the immediate impact of the will as far as what's likely to happen and that we saw in this case that you know emotional suggest that it doesn't really apply to cancellation when they will but that even if we even if we agree that it is based on the comments in the case indicating they made basically hardship but i guess what i see that as and still somewhat of a legal question that the petitioner is making which is what what does the case law require in terms of the degree of fact findings that need to be made and that we have jurisdiction to at least consider that argument he's making because he's not asking us right now to weigh or balance the factors or two to reconsider the discretionary decision he's asking us to look at whether additional or more detailed fact finding should have been made and isn't that a legal question and perhaps we reject has not presented a colorable question of law or a constitutional claim and the reason for that is because at least before the supreme court's guerrero decision this court case law was pretty clear that questions of law is restricted to only statutory construction type claim and so here it's not a statutory construction claim it's more so whether you know the board followed its own regulation and whether you know who is making the factual findings the extent of actual  that's different than saying what exactly does the statue require mean because this court has already held that go ahead i'm sorry don't we know after guerrero that it's it's broader now well broader than a to be i about discretionary decisions but it didn't say anything about discretionary decisions and it explicitly sort of or at least that tellingly omitted that from its analysis and didn't say anything about it it didn't say that its  is a discretionary determination there is no algorithm to determine you know whether the agency came to the right conclusion a judgment and so therefore there is no meaningful standard to judge it against so