did was he said the father doesn't qualify a good more character because he's responsible for causing his daughters to be smuggled and and the daughters don't years because that's when the time stops but the time and then the only issue was whether there was an interaction with the last seven years and it's ok if there's an interruption as long as the interruption doesn't count more than ninety days and in this case because of the way  lee unclear as to what the grounds for or finding a lack of seven years of physical presence certainly at one point the judge says i find  nova that so with respect to petition or statement that the issue before this court is whether the family had accrued seven years in correctives the issue is whether the daughters had actually accrued seven years and with respect to the arguments that they've made here today regarding the custodial parent and whether that issue whether the daughters can somehow accrue time that the father may have accrued although the immigration judge can make that finding isn't an issue years that's correct and the issues that they've raised with respect to the custodial parent and whether they actually can go back to the father is not an issue that was ever raised before the board and they can't raise it for the first time here on review which they've done in their reply brief and of course the government wouldn't be able to waive that issue before the board because it was never it was never so the fact that they're now claiming that the doctors can somehow piggyback onto really the custodial parent because the mother had abandoned the next that if she was never raised before the board is not properly before this court on review for failure to exhaust administrative remedies r i don't think there's any ambiguity your honor the immigration judge clearly found that the daughters did not meet the seven year physical presence requirement they left the country in one thousand nine hundred four with their mother and then returned for five months later question to you in a way that wasn't easily comprehend it i quoting the immigration judge who says after having found that the image of the father is not eligible for suspension i was going to say i also believe that consistent without having their father arranged to have them brought back illegally after their mother had taken it takes on a different meaning doesn't it but for the reason that they do not possess seven years i think that's hard to read that is but for in the sense that lawyers use but for are you re the prior sentence their father arranged have them brought back i guess my question goes back to my original question clearly is an adverb that perhaps was not apt as that appears clear to me but i understand that the court obviously we're here arguing the case and there is a difference of opinion by the immigration judge made two findings with respect to ineligibility and that one was based on a lack of good moral character and one was based on on time and well the sentence is appearing together and i understand your own arse position it's the government's position that those are two separate findings with respect to statutory ineligibility of the government's position if one could entertain the notion that there are some ambiguity about what the and immigration judge was doing are statutory requirements which this immigration judge found they didn't meet now with respect to the girls and the discretionary require arment of extreme hardship the immigration judge was a pathetic and made a finding that there would be extreme hardship individuals and well you know the immigration judge as i said was sympathetic and found extreme hardship the fact of the matter is they didn't meet the statutory requirement and while this court may disagree with whether they should be permitted to day or night disagreements are not record evidence compelling a contrary conclusion which is the standard that this court is required to apply in this case when it happened if we were to suspensions you partition and i would assume that the immigration judge could now look at the extreme hardship issue again because it sent back to them or back to the immigration judge and the reason that there was extreme hardship was because these girls had to undergo surgery i believe at the age of fifteen and that was back in one thousand nine hundred ninety six two thousand and four it's five years later when they're still in extreme hardship or not would be an issue that the immigrate judge may be able to read this if you know that's me on the table and there might be the else you tell us that the reason why we can't discuss but i think it's wrong reasoning is because that issue was not raised before the appropriate administrative agency it's before the board how do we know that for sure my mom's house and the girls they cried they've crossed they didn't want to be there they wanted to come up here to the united states you have any contact with their mother not now it's been several years since i've known where she was that she ever call you it's over she has not called since ninety six and it looks to me as though the mother doesn't really stop contacting the children until ninety six but th