but it is that person into the summary of furman's under i have actually my section so according to that in order to reconsider that original peel you have to get to the underlying immigration judges opinion i would see it maybe your reasoning and not having to but because of the most we consider the only way to reconsider the original appeal let's look at the underlying immigration judges opinion and i just directly related to the language problem since they won't be able to communicate in spanish the language spoken and taught in schools in mexico and in addition several cases in the circuit make clear that factual finding was evident if the review of the records to the board had ample opportunity to address as far as long as is necessary in this case the board simply denied the motion on the basis that again that there was just no new material that the court had not or the board had not  considered and that was the end of frances and ma the court of the board i believe made that determination and then made an additional statement that as we indicated in our prior decision and so therefore the government asse make an argument as to the merits of the denial of the motion to reconsider that is what the board essentially said is you haven't provided any new information and that's actually saying that you didn't demonstrate any factual or legal error in our decision below assert that that would be a waiver of the issue but even if not the board's denial of the motion to reconsider was certainly not an abuse of discretion in this case where within the motion to reconsider there was no new information brought forth that wasn't that the board had not already considered and the motion did not demonstrate any factual or legal error below and so on that basis alone the court to determine that the the board do not lecture section or would be a legal determination it's to the discretion of the fact finder to to weigh the factors going to hardship and determining making a subjective determination whether that w believe that the statement from mr probert testimony at page eighty three of the record asking that the father and what language do you speak at home both you speak english a little what language do you generally speak at home though well my children know english but what language do you speak to your you speak to your children i mean english know in spanish also and what language do you speak to your wife spanish they do use more spanish and less english at home addition the judge also noted elsewhere in the his decision that the child was in the fifth grade the oldest child was instructed in english and also confirmed that that spanish was spoken in the house but i guess more to the point taken that the evidence didn't compel a contrary determination that the children were not bilingual and furthermore i'm what if that's a conceptual question let's say that he made a clear out legal error that he factual allegation in connection with the discretionary determination then there would be no jurisdiction over it in this case i'd also like to point out that the petitioners never demonstrated that their linguistic abilities alone would alter the hardship determination hardship determination was based upon other factors and the record that the children the qualifying relatives and the petitioners themselves were healthy individuals that the majority of the immediate relatives  js hardship determination and quickly i'd like to point out that a review of the record in this case certainly does not reveal bias on the part of the immigration judge to the contrary i demonstrates that the immigration still going to be available to them why don't we because their stay over move or was denied by this court in october two thousand and two that the positions would not be able to have their voluntary departure told of course but that in this case the result would be compelled by the laws that currently exist thank you spanish i mean sorry spoke english and had difficulty understanding spanish they couldn't read in spanish and spanish language that was the testimony of mr sama and in the absence of an expressed credibility determination against all presumably the question of whether or not to