petitioners to round things off to even digits i've increased the time to sixteen minutes per side so is curio you'll have seven minutes miswire the six minutes and then three just the one we are well your honor aside from rehabilitation there was additional fact fighting on appeal in regards to williams seriousness and that he eyes that he has been convicted of so this is another the syrian use a judgment call that's apply to the facts and we drew that distinction in the parents palafox counties so why isn't this on the other side of the line from purposes while your honor all of it is in fact a factual determination but here we don't have any facts for the cia to determine that it was a serious offense and we only have some testimony from that he in regard only to the rd d y i an order for that the i e as you stated to determine factually based on the record we would need to fremantle and if they find that they don't have enough in fact on the record page fifty nine dollars that you're referencing and that was the only mention that id made in regards to seriousness and within that it would be a general statement that you eyes were serious however is that the th went a step further and not only of agreed with the idea about the seriousness in general of you eyes but went further by stating that william specifics you i convictions  serious offenses that jeopardize the safety of persons and property and that is not only accepting that i do so going further and that going further is a fact finding on  daughter's medical condition when they held that the most recent twenty four team medical records medical documents and the record before us that they are responding to eight year old daughter continue to do well post surgery is healthy documents and what the b i did was quote one of the other medical records that had been put into the record by mr martinez and that the jury credited in terms of  anger on behalf of the attorney general i just want to apologize in advance because i'm on audio i can't see if your honour's have a question so please just interrupt me and i apologize if i speak up for you unintentionally the immigration judge specifically said that the petitioner was firmly on the path towards rehabilitation and the board did not find that the petitioner was not rehabilitated and the board merely weighed the facts weighed the equities which  title to do pursuant to its discretion and found that the recent rehabilitation at times and the equities presented they did not adequately tip the discretionary balance toward a favorable exercise of discretion the board did not find path to rehabilitation and with the recent rehabilitation attempts and then immediately followed by saying that the prior attempts had ended in failure clearly suggesting the thought that this attempt was likely to end in failure as well so that it doesn't see the system with the i j s finding does it but the board's not explicitly disagreeing with the high just finding regarding being on the path towards rehabilitation i think i think if anything the board is simply pointing out that just lawyers not fully rehabilitated necessarily and that the immigration judge can find that he's only re isn't that when you're on the path towards rehabilitation you're you're not necessarily rehabilitated and that there could be stops along the path towards action but the board's entitled to look at all of these different factors to weighing the equities the board's not disagreeing with immigration judges findings here regarding rehabilitation and next turning to the seriousness that was discussed the seriousness of the duis once again the board's not disagreeing with anything the immigration judge said regarding seriousness and as your honor pointed out the immigration judge that the board did not make any findings of fact on its own and agreed with the immigration judge's decision regarding the seriousness of the offenses turning to the issue so that that alone is  the immigration judge its findings regarding the finances of the children mothers and it made clear why it found and it's because there's simply no evidentiary support for the immigration judges otherwise speculative findings there's nothing in the records regarding the mothers of men ability and ability to have their children get the petitioner in el salvador are quite right because maybe as to mantua ability but as to a man ability mr martinez was asked specifically and do you believe that her mom this is the daughter's mother her mom would come visit you in el salvador with her and his response was i don't believe she would and that's testimony that was accredited by the i j so that is so it's not true i board is saying that there is no evidence regarding the mother's i'm an ability inability to have thirty children visit so there's nothing in the record you think with her and do you believe that her mom would come visit you in el salvador with her regarding the mothers of the men ability to visit petitioner in el salvador with the daughter yes there is evidence regarding that but there is no evidence as to whether the mother would be ok with the daughter visiting petitioner or with  daughter going with another family member to visit petitioner and i think that is what the board's decision but there is no evidentiary support for the mothers of the on the ability and ability to have their children just to have the daughter visit petition its asked so i don't think that the border hath state every reason as the explanation for doing it that if we look at the record there there is no evidence regarding the parents that were getting a mother's financial and turning to the sheer guarding the toddler petitioner's daughter's heart condition the board does not find clear air and the immigration judge's decision on this point in fact the board doesn't find any and just quotes directly the most recent medical record regarding the daughter's heart condition that that's what the board did so the board didn't find errors the board is simply weighing the evidence which is the title to do under the discretionary hardship determination that relates to the rehabilitation issue that we discussed and after reading that decision it appears that that case is more like what petitioner is arguing where if the immigration judge says the petitioners rehabilitated and then the board comes and then says no the petitioner is not rehabilitated the board has to show clear air and that factual finding but that's the government solutions that's not what happened here not only t clearly the finding of rehabilitation the i judge do we have anything comparable here oh well your honor