but he didn't get the sense he didn't get to talk about in detail about how he'll that is going to be supported by her family whether she's not going to be able to live with the rather's and sisters that she has been whether there are he wants to talk about whether there are any other people in the united states who can help provide here for which is not available all of that evidence is certainly important and relevant and much more focused instead of a general comment that she'll have difficulties or we might have to go to the state report it is separated from family because that would be the case that's correct but that's exactly what he was not allowed to establish he was not given a full and fair opportunity to present all of those hardships presenting i think certainly part of the evidence is the relationship between the letter and her brothers and sisters that evidence which judge poe said is relevant she's not going to consider that relationship because these children were not adopted by the other that i think  is clearly incorrect and non qualifying relatives and we see this there was an extended family including qualifying relatives in one qualifying relatives who actually quite similar to this case and was seen as the board granted the relief where the mother was a mother in this case but the sole support of family most the board specifically talks about non qualifying relatives and says there is distance cannot be ignored which is exactly what happened here their existence in effect is ignored by judge poe the government is well first of all it certainly is correct that the hardships of the non qualifying relatives can be considered in a discretionary decision i think that's correct but also interesting is the board specifically talks about hardships and i'm qualifying relatives the immigration judge took the position that his relationship to the to the to his non natural children is irrelevant and his support for the family in mexico is irrelevant she even though there are some evidence in the record as to that in making her decision she refused to consider she says the relevant and meeting in writing her decision she doesn't consider those those factors and that might have been relevant on the cancellation of her view of the law  concern was with the past the tax issues and what he how he's going to get that straightened out basically he's deported from the united states that he's not allowed to come back into the united states for ten years that's and i would theoretically there is a waiver available but you know those are difficult yes i get and i don't think we can assume that's why he would be granted that waiver if he goes back under voluntary good morning alison i know from the department of justice representing the attorney general the court has actually come after most of my argument because you focused in on exactly what's at issue here and that is even if there was a due process phylicia what prejudice  he was well aware that he had to show exceptionally unusual hardship and when he came into court he was well aware that it was his burden and there is nothing other than the mere fact of separation and whether the child is an infant or well a child is or the child is ten i think it's unfair to say that it's different to be taken from my mother when i'm sure than when i'm ten i think i think it in a dozen cases generally i younger child the dubs more easily than a child of ten so the court's decision is that exceptionally exceptional minute extremely unusual hardship is the separation of a parent from a child i don't think you can make an age determination i think that the cases have shown that congress i the legislative history shows the congress was aware of that and they they intended by using that language by strengthening increasing the requirement that they expected that there for there to be hardship out of the  ordinary and there are many cases that say that the muse separation of the family it's inherited in deportation cases and in fact one of the things that that was not apparent on this record and i believe that it's the petitioners responsibility to do this this status it's very possible that she will take the child and go back to mexico but what does situational really want to have it both ways he didn't want to have to put in the evidence and make a decision because for all these reasons and lever here but he's arguing that the only thing he was not a logic reason evidence on is what when she state whether she says she laughed or what her relationship was with her with her brothers and i and now it's like you know eight years later and what he asked to be qualified for voluntary departure is good moral character in the prior five years so  there are there are three letters from the boys in the record the boys say he has always been there there's testimony that the natural father is in jail that he has been with this woman for eight years they think of him as the father this is all evidence in the r opportunity to present evidence on the house and that around here but your honor i agree with all of that and i'm not arguing that what i'm saying is that this petitioner who was represented by an