exclude hardship to his relatives and that she would deny the waiver is a matter of discretion the board of immigration appeals do not reach the extreme hardship binding but only upon the judge with some supplemental evening on the discretionary it hit the gym i cannot deprive us of jurisdiction over this petition for review it seems that the assessment of extreme hardship that the judge and for the bulk ignored the dense material too harsh a determination but how do we draw that line i mean if if if if all the sub part d means is that there's a well if all this a part b means i should say that there's no jurisdiction in that small set of cases in which the immigration judge has properly ticked off a comment on every single factual issue that's there and explained it that would go quite against a lot of losses we've said they don't have to go through things in checklist fashion i don't see a wholesale ignoring of an i understand i believe all of these cases involving leverage that is a difficult line between just if the judge says we the facts properly or that there was evidence that was ignored and that of course there's a judgment as to whether or not that  material we believe in this case that this is more closely it can particularly in the hardship determination which speaks to how discretion will exercise as well to this court decision to la that case the the petitioners wife who was a qualifying relative that had a rather severe depression issue including postpartum depression and the judge in that he in the board there is that there is a history of depression not that context of what is occurring with the depression as a result of the addition of the tension and possible deportation but why and so that asking the board to go we think that they did acknowledge the oppression but we didn't i don't believe st the board didn't address the hardship finding the judges alone address the hardship issue the board looked only to discretion so this is only really enough but that even though she stated in the next paragraph i looked at the evidence the aggregate that there's not evidence from the decision that she did that she assassins each about each hardship socrate lee rather than together and so we think that the hardship finding itself was infirm because it does not apply the correct legal standard in analyzing the factors and that there were a number of parts or factors that we can't help from the judge's decision that they were reviewed and considered and that the discretionary finding one of the key factors also if that was by the board and deciding that discretion should be exercised is the level of hardship to that position or and to his family and so if the extreme hardship determination was not properly made it of course influences the discretionary decision we believe also that the word and judge fails to account for the decision as rehabilitation there is mention of him completing a sentence and paying restitution but nothing regarding whether or not he accepted responsibility expressed remorse for his conduct if there were other roster other evidence of bad character rehabilitation is in  experience in the courts and in our immigration courts perhaps the most important factor to a judge in determining whether or not facts like discretion and we don't see in the border or immigration judges susan added in that rehabilitation w consider and so we feel that those points of it and are material to both of the decisions and that that take that out of just the review of of the discretion itself but was the actual evidence material to the decision that was ignored and were the proper legal standards actually applied i think argument as well sort of part by the supreme court's decision this last march and guerrero was free of the and requested a waiver of an ability and as opposing counsel mentioned this requires two elements a finding of extreme hardship and a favorable exercise of discretion upon chase lamb this court's case in miami where the immigration judge in that case the court held over looked evidence with regard to extreme hardship in this instance the board balance the factors considered the totality of the record and they that the petitioner was not deserving of a favor of both exercise of dispatch intent to commit or injury and one of the board found whereas the board found here the petition was charged and convicted on five counts and this is relevant because the board  that the were financial crimes committed over a period of several years and victim was out more than one hundred thousand dollars that was on the facts extreme hardship so the board is making a determination as to whether or not the attorney general is going to exercise whether or not this case warrants discretion  lana was depressed and found psychologically unable to care for young children whereas the petitioner's spouse began taking drugs discretionary denial o here i think the main crux of the case which the board noted is that the petitioner was charged and convicted of serious crimes and it's opinion the board looked at