they have police the court my name is dennis mccaffrey i represent the petitioners the forest family i would like the police to reserve two minutes of time this is a cancellation removal based in which the florists family all of whom are aliens in this country without documents with the exception of their once  still we have the two parents mr forrest and his wife laura and their younger son eric all of whom are in the united states without documents but who have been here for more than ten years and therefore they qualify to apply for cancellation of removal and in doing so they need to demonstrate if they are to be awarded cancellation of removal that they have the ten years residence that they good moral character that they have not committed any of certainly the right to crimes and that their son who is a united states citizen marcos jr would suffer exceptional and exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if his parents and brother were removed and so at the hearing before the immigration judge there were two issues on which the evidence focused one was the statutory eligibility of mr forrest with regard to good moral character because she in one thousand nine hundred four it's just his wife and signed to enter the united states illegally he himself family in this manner that he could not establish good moral character this ruling by the judge was later overturned by the board of immigration appeals and the one remaining issue then after that was exceptional extremely unusual hardship to young marcos now marcos at the time of this theory was thirteen years old he was in the seventh grade and it was established from the records that we have presented and admitted by the court in the way of documents that he was an exceptional student that he was in that talented and gifted program and that both with regard to his accomplishments and his expectations that he was a very good student the only witness in the case other than members of the fourth family was the bilingual education teacher from the school district where the forest boys for the school down and independents who are again the central school district this teacher whose name was ms laura zink had ten years of experience in bilingual education she had personally caught hold of the forest boys when they were in the fifth grade and so it was evidence from her with regard to the issue of whether or not young mark post educational opportunities would be disrupted if his family were deported states from abroad particularly from mexico who have been educated in a latin american educational system particularly in mexico history had testified that she had that knowledge and the judge said  actually could not however present based on that knowledge her experience with every third through the spanish language abilities of those children educated up to five years in mexico until perhaps they take it as an elective in high school but the bilingual education program hands and instruction in spanish and it's great therefore marco's as a seventh grader facing the prospect of going back to mexico has been behind likelihood of a disruption of his education and the degree to which that's destruction work or he was with in the can of missing but the police matter is within the scope of our knowledge and i'm fully prepared to agree with you that the i j a was making a mistake when he concluded that she didn't she was unqualified to testify as to the educational levels of students that she herself saw when they came into her school system enables people to raise to the first time issues of due process before the court of appeals whether or not they had been raised before the board of immigration appeals and that you say whether or not they've been r before the the board of immigration appeals one of the central issues in our fields of the border of immigration of fields was precisely that the evidence had been eroni asli included that had the evidence come into the record that the court would have been able to have make a make a better determination on this particular issue and may very well have found that the level of hardship had been met so we didn't definitely raise it to the court the government says that before the board we did not label it as a violation of due process and that is correct we label it as failure to admit the evidence basically alleging and error of law on the part of the of the i'm an immigration judge under martin charged in mexico with his family does not amount to exceptional hardship under the statute in other words even if her evidence had been admitted i don't see that it would have made a difference under the rules o disruption of education all by itself may well not have reached that level however there was also another factor that the judge didn't take into consideration and yet analyzed which is the age of the life there is precedent from the board of immigration appeals that states that as children are older it becomes more difficult for them to adjust to a foreign culture even if it is the culture of their parents native home and so in luke in his statements with regard to his rulings the judge said this law is almost at the edge of that statement is with reference to that other point that the boy as thirteen year old boy was very near to where you would say it is going to be know your little over letter from the government and then and that's not being argued today right i think a review of the transcripts real significant difference in the transcript in this case i would agree it's not ideal however i think that where the real problem was in the transcript for the top of the transcript on the good mom character issue on the smuggling issue that is still was corrected by the board of the in fact the board said the finding was ultimately correct that it no longer matter because ten more than ten years had passed that are what she had direct knowledge and i think that part of the transcript where he begins to limit her testimony is where she is about to testify regarding students who have come to the united states testimony should have been excluded because she didn't have that knowledge i'm saying that that testimony wasn't probative on the issue that counsel was adjusting it was being offered or that the immigration judge excluded the testimony because she had no direct knowledge child his accomplishments in fact he repeatedly states in the transcript and in his order justice is a bright and capable and accomplished child he also expected that the mother's testimony that affording college in mexico would more difficult he took notice of the differences between economies and educational systems in the two countries i think all of that evidence which is the exact point that council was attempting to make with the teachers a was considered by the immigration judge ultimately and taken into the hardship how committed and as your owners are aware of the fact that the immigration judge simply at one of the day weighed that evidence and weighed those factors and determine the hardship w is not the issue before the court i don't think that the immigration judge was just saying that she had no knowledge of children coming from mexico to schools here i don't think she was just in that she had no knowledge of biling education in the united states i think it's clear from the transcript what he was suggesting was that she had no knowledge of the system in mexico and it was his understanding that that's what the testimony was being offered for was to demonstrate that upon the child returned to mexico his opportunities there would be frustrated and that was the fact that the immigration judge actually at one eighty nine and one nine of the transcript he said i'll have to draw those conclusions as a judge and indeed that is a available or the reduction in opportunities to the child in mexico i think all of that evidence was considered by the immigration judge part and parcel with the remaining factors of his age and the employment prospects for his parents  please i thank you very much i would like to shift the focus a little bit now because i believe we've only covered the immigration judge the evidence before him and whether or not it was proper to admit it i believe it should have been admitted and i believe by the failure to admit petitioners i would like to focus now on the board of immigration appeals the board of immigration appeals decided this case with a single judge i believe they should have decided it with three geysers and particularly when it came to their attention that the judge's ruling with regard to mr forrest and his inability to establish good moral character was now erroneous based on the passenger of time that factor which was one of the factors that the judge cited in saying and saying that exceptional extremely unusual hardship had not been met he said look mr force is going back to mexico anyway and so if i award cancellation of removal to mrs morris and the other boy then the family is split up because mr four simply doesn't qualify when the one of immigration appeals corrected that and said well yes mr forrest does fall it seems to me they were under an obligation to take the next step and take now they are worth reading much to give full and  consideration to this evidence which the judge excluded we should with the three member panel really see whether or not that evidence was admissible under our own standards which are set out in their various precedent decision failure of the board to do that was different from the ever of the judge and so we are asking for two separate types of relief from this court one is bringing them to the board of immigration appeals to reason and one back to the judge to take all the evidence so that we can get a full hearing the other is that the board itself whether it goes on back to the immigration judge or not was acted in error by ruling by a single judge and we would had roberts and versus the law goes he has been continued off calendar we have two remaining cases on the argument calendar the morning the first of this morning the first of which is about villainy versus