being number one the acquisition of his own business the number two the acquisition of his own home is now a homeowner in the united states and probably the most important element would be the chang arrangements with his daughter he is now the full time custodial parent his daughter lives with him those are items that while all of these occurred came into being s know your honor they were not necessarily going to improve his chances they were thin as a part of his life to improve the relationship and with his daughter here's his main goal throughout all of the years and his daughter has been  wife has been to be a very important member of her life he went to court in her early years to establish that relationship and to make sure that the mother would not remove custodial arrangements from his daughter he remain home the acquisition of his own business demonstrates that this is an individual who is proactive in his life he wants to succeed in life and his goal is to continue to provide a safe and stable environment for his daughter as well as almost certainly for him still these items were not addressed by the board their decision indicated that it was merely cumulative in fact the actual decision rendered by  situation the petitioner had taken a lot of proactive steps very involved in his daughter's life these were new factors that arose after the denial by the by the immigration judge and they were there was no evidence contrary to what the board said that there was no new evidence in fact there was new evidence and by failing to address that the board ignored for example the board minute this is pretty serious stuff the brief on one of the two most important issues in this case argues that we don't have jurisdiction in this instance in other words to examine one  jurisdiction and cites of this circuit case that is absolutely contrary to a long string of ninth circuit cases i understand your honor i'll make that one down in the alps i suspect meaning make it known but the message is you know that's part of being professional being a lawyer and it's part of representing the united states department of justice so not the department of prosecution or the department of removal of people from the country it's the department of justice and you have a particular responsibility to prove to play straight with the court the you understand that yes you're on this and this is very serious stuff this is not in the spelling this is not his cancellation application the cancellation of removal that position makes perfect sense to me with respect to the first two but i have something of a question about the third one and that is now that he has full talking perspectively that when she started the new school year they had discussed that she would live with her father that had not taken place yet and they had not gone back to the court obviously and anyway changed the custody hardship if the father was removed to the daughter it's a very very high burden for the petitioner that must overcome it must be materially evidence that wasn't available before you know i mean this agreement could easily have taken place presented to the board it wants clear through the both the clinical social worker and mother of the child as well as denise herself all three of them testified in their are presented information in understand your point i believe that that is an important element there should have been given an opportunity for review in the immigration court and i believe that that in the now this is well it's the cumulative effect of all of the other ustream were close to her father she came out and they spent a great deal of time together even when she was a little girl she spent most of her important formative times with her father i believe again that mr is indicative of extreme exceptional extreme unusual hardship for example model rail doesn't state that only medical conditions will be considered or only psychological conditions will be considered in fact many factors can be