law that imposed this threshold evidentiary requirement and because the he felt the petitioner couldn't meet the this threshold he never got he never reached an evaluation base on with the bus this is the way i read just his reasoning ok this is what i think you say the mother is here illegally and so although i believe she intends to stay here forever she made be deported and so that makes this plan suspect now the mother cannot support the child that she says the child is going to go on welfare the father cannot support the provisions for the child support and therefore under matter of our age i cannot give this plan credence and i cannot evaluate hardship under this plan so you lose so you didn't reach the merits of hardship he denied it just unfortunate because several legal errors as well as you go through what the judge did first of all the judge requires an affidavit well that's taking i jot of context because i evidence that was a mistake now what about the content of what the judge was looking for well the judge seemed to be very concerned that petitioner had made reasonable provision for the child support and it's just that's also taken out of context from from i because i speak cells of reasonable provisions such as staying with a relative or or an important school and that's just to  to to both take the credibility of this of this plan does it mean the child needs to be able to prove he can you know maintain a middle class lifestyle before he can before the judge can can value a hardship i mean and in fact the fact that the petitioner couldn't provide proof that he could reasonably support his child from mexico that was a hardship factor that wasn't a bar to him being able to significant weight to this kind of hardship he's only talking about this one plan if you started to give significant way to this one and only plan and it's the same it's just giving no wait it all so there was there was no way in going on there was no analysis of of of the child how the child would fare under this this plan counsel at some point would you give some consideration to the ten year continuous presence issue i'd be happy to our position is that the church is method of evaluating the evidence west was completely at odds with his credibility finding and that's and that's why reasonable compel to fine otherwise because his his credibility finding excused the petitioner's faulty memory because of his age at the his youth at the date of his entries only fourteen and then because of the passage of time and then the judge has to have two pieces of evidence really he has the letter and that's supported by three credible i think occasion by the petitioner will then only authentication was that he got the letter from he might see it on a few days before the isn't the greater problem that i was alternative evidence available not presented and relatives who were here in the united states lawfully who could have supported his statements they they may have been able to but it's thank you stacy tatic on behalf of the spawn an attorney general if the government's position that the court lacks jurisdiction over petitioners challenge to the agency's subjective discretionary finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate the requisite level of excess staff shall make strongly unusual hardship to meet the burden of proving eligibility for cancellation of a move all in addition because they have failed colorable constitutional claim in this case the immigration judge took testimony reviewed what little evidence was presented  petitioners hardship claim as well as physical presence claim the immigration judge heard the testimony and actually and dressed in his decision that petitioners united states citizen daughter is a healthy happy child no motional issues no psychological issues the question of the question is whether or not a qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship should the parent be deported and he didn't really make that finding because he never got there because there was no eye affidavit so the due process crime that she didn't have i think it would be that she didn't have he didn't have the full on their hearing or even a a ruling on the extreme hardship given the factual circumstances that were presented to the i j a at the hearing actually aren't government respectfully disagrees beginning on page fifty of the administrative record which is the immigration judge's decision the second half of the decision beginning on page fifty discusses the hardship finding prior to that in the immigration judge's decision the immigration judge discusses or relates petitioner's testimony as it would develop towards a hardship finding the immigration judge the hardship finding encompasses many different factors and how those factors equate to or could equate to exceptional and extremely unusual hardship as a result of petitioners removal to mexico included in that is the health of the child if the childe trial had serious health considerations that would be one of several factors to consider if petitioner was removed how what the effect would be on the level of hardship to that qualifying relative here the immigration judge discusses there are no health issues looks through and before page fifty in his decision discussed is that there are family members in the united states and page one hundred of the record which is the transcript there is a great discussion of the twelve different family members residing in the united states i believe only three of them are in a lawful status as well as a declaration by petitioner in evidence discussing those relatives their connections to the family their proximity to the family believe the immigration judge was looking into the future because of the wife's i'm certain status and the wife's declaration that if she were to remain here with the daughter she could not provide for her wel fare and the fact that petitioner testified that if he were removed the wife and daughter would stay and would have to rely on the family to help the family could help the daughter wouldn't be is petitioner did not meet his burden of proving a lot of a lot of issues in this case mainly related to the hardship he didn't provide anything related to any provisions if he were to leave he did not look into economic opportunities in mexico but i think that that's the point it's going to be a huge hardship because i mean i don't know what's out there for me but that's and this court has held that that is a common issue for anyone that has removed economic hardship it's weather and i think things really the hardship to a child correct sure has a duty to provide evidence to the court related to any opportunity if he they have assets in this country that could be sold to immigration judge and there was testimony related to that they are partners in a the immigration judge requires for purposes of proof an affidavit or declaration absolutely not your honor because in this instance and by counsel throughout every proceeding there is every part of the immigration and nationality act related to benefits requires affidavits evidence all sorts of support the fact that there was there's allegedly a claim that they were not on notice that they would have to provide any sort of affidavit related to the care financial support plans for the child a petition was removed does not conform with basic dynamic would it be a violation of due process to consider that a particular form of proof namely an affidavit is required when and the need you have someone there willing to swear under oath  testify in this case your honor i believe i see where you're going that's not the situation in fact you are just asking whether as a matter of law as a matter of law if it is the jurisprudence in the circuit to allow testimony or a declaration in place of an actual affidavit the nats should suffice in this case petitioner testified that he thought perhaps the child c live with the brother and hill who is not a lawful permanent resident and the sister angela but there's problems with that because she has two kids in the house and he watches the other kids there's problems there's all sorts of expenses related to provide the agency with any clear determination that actually any provisions had been made and left with uncertainty and no evidence upon which to rely to demonstrate if it's a hardship and there is no one that can help then he had to duty to stay so he said that yes he has twelve family members here yes his wife is going to stay the familial separation card as a form to prove the hardship without any teeth associated with it and as a baseline petitioner we need to provide hideous there because it said the case presented a pure question of law and the supreme court has also stated there is a strong tradition and he is corpus law that subjects still legally erroneous failure to