arbitrarily irrationally and contrary to law are you not properly considering all the relevant factors before ruling in not considering that cumulative effect of the factors it did consider and in not providing a reason explanation for institution the evidence provided with a motion to reopen once new evidence that was not available and could not have been presented at the former hearing i couldn't quite see what new evidence really mattered even with all the new evidence it was quite the hardship was no greater than if the parents moved from san francisco to bismarck north dakota or for that matter fairbanks alaska which  what did she have to say that matthew would have been able to testify as to her serious medical conditions that needed treatment in the united states that were not available for treatment or similar treatment cannot be you know my question about what if instead of moving to mexico they're moving to fairbanks they would get treatment in fairbanks they could get here i think you get that anywhere in the united states they couldn't get in mexico i have to go to seattle for some of my medical appointments that's fine that's not a hardship for them to this in other places in the united states but mexico is a different anything that we should assume that they didn't read anything that they don't talk about well that's what the ninth circuit if they did not read the record even though they say they read the record we should have to may only read what they talked about express mean please the court john you try and behalf of the united states attorney general your honor this appeal of this petition for review actually has two appeals within it the first of which is an appeal of a translation of remove all the station by the board which this court knows does not the court rather to understand that the board decided this case not on the balancing of the hardships or the equity and petitioners counsel wants us to know what it is they probably will come out the other way this is a very tough case isn't on the  what it is a tough case your honor that's right but they didn't have to in this case and as far as the the balancing of the equities their ultimate really the court found that the factors that weighed against the granting of cancellation of removal of those athletes that went against the case were outweighed the other ones and but again they did not find it on x factor really all the board had to decide was whether or not counsel was ineffective in this case and that specifically came down to one issue whether or not the evidence that petitioner now wants to bring before before the immigration judge and it's clearly indicated that you can review the record ninety seven to eight ninety i don't fight starts at eight ninety seven in the record counsel makes those changes in open court as to whether or not  specifically if she asked intuition or to bring witnesses and documents she says i gave him a witness list actually i gave him my list of documents to bring petitioner says that she didn't do that but as physicians former counsel properly point she in fact noted three documents three days a couple days prior to the hearing that petitioner did bring to her and that's all that he brought so when you weigh the two affidavits as the board and properly so it was appropriate for them to the equities into analyze whether this document would have made a difference or that document made a difference that's really not before the court the issue is whether or not it was his fault i guess you could say or it's possible fault that these documents proposition that petition is constitutional muster that the case was prejudiced by the ineffectiveness and also stated because the new evidence was of the old but the time of the hearing she would not she doesn't qualify for reopening based on  acted rationally in finding the way that it did it so as to inconsistent statements before it even greater weight to the one that was consistent with the record and therefore the court really only has to find as the board didn't find that they properly  and it's obvious from the record that this former council represented this client for two years if you want i'm cooperated unforthcoming uncommunicative and inflexible she had the option to withdraw as counsel rather than to proceed with the case that she