the reason we're here is primarily found in pages three dollars and four dollars the certified administrative record two paragraphs and those pages the last full paragraph on page three and the last paragraph on seventy three there's evidence of the beaches years away was widowed when she was in her twenty's her prior husband died she was left with two minor children one of them four months old and one of them a toddler she was pregnant when  her husband passed away and petitioner stepped into her life became her kirchner helped her raise those children they had another child together at the time of the board's decision and they did it together for at least fifteen years as she was working part commissioner that's true but i want to make it very clear and i think that this is something that other respondents reaches a sort of misleading about that there was never any consideration of hardship to the the petitioners wife at any time during proceedings because she was not a qualifying relative and one of the statements that the agency makes that i think very troubling is they suggest that the immigration judge could have considered the well that's true but that's also you know he's talking about there's no point in waiting and a look at the harm now and it's not enough i mean there's the standard for a good cause for a continuance is not that one needs to make a responded to search that the st the nd continuance i guess is when the court changes venue from detention to the tucson immigration court they say there's another continuance when he asserted that those are continuing says and it i think that it's very concerning if we consider those as continuances because scenarios that move a case in an increasing progression towards that same day the cancellation application was filed and eighteen nearly eighteen months later the continuing continuance motion was filed in the th hour in that eighteen month period there was never mentioned there was no mention at all from petitioner standpoint that they intended to add the spouse as a qualified relative  we have no evidence of no new evidence or shipped to the wife and she made it clear that she was going to go the petitioner made it clear that she would accompany her husband to mexico yet we don't have  motion to reopen it's just happens to occur at the time when the case into that is in the government's brief we made an argument that there was never an articulation of any hardship to the to the spouse even subsequent to l p r status being granted and there was there was new evidence aside from the court questioning petitioners counsel to date wouldn't you evidence is there and we still haven't heard of any of your hardship addict's so at this point there is nothing that  for example about any well there are several letters from the respondents wave and her children adjusting to the emotional hardship that she would enjoy her if she lost her husband and again i mean i'm not saying exactly what you're implying your honor because the immigration judge and yet they said there was no evidence no evidence in the record of any hardship and again you know i think it's really important to point out that the agency immigration judge