second time after remain with explicit instructions to the b a the circuit short circuit should carefully examine the order of the b i to see if they have followed the instructions the board of immigration appeals was well aware of this court's instructions when it states in its two thousand and fourteen decision that it should fully examine the favorable factors in support of his discretionary grant of relief and three visit the petitioners worthiness of a discretionary grant and instead of a fully examining all they did is list the is a liar and he's lied repeatedly and that is that's such a big factor we say that no matter how good the other factors are if it doesn't we're not going to exercise her discretion to to grant his motion to they don't have to weigh each individual positive factor or can they just say we know there's a lot of great positive factors but we have one really is why isn't that responsive to  is such a big issue repeated lying to us that all these positives just not are not are not enough to overcome it what do they then have to say and i weigh this positive as ten points in this positives ten they can't just give a bare conclusion well any discussion so i agree that the we don't condone and it was bad what he did however they only listed the factors and they didn't ever discuss any of the equities hardships these eight citizen children were going to suffer or the relationship that they had with their parents the fact that the mother had wasn't employed that he was supporting all of them the fact that those children had different fathers and none of the fathers had been involved in their lives there was no discussion to consider certain things they simply didn't consider this time they considered it and they said you know your client's a big liar i mean he didn't lie just once he lied or pleaded little immigration authorities and we consider that to be really really bad discussion to talk about the favorable actress they didn't do that all they did is list we has he eight years has some children he has a long relationship he's been here since for a long time and that's it and then they moved on in israel several paragraphs on why everything he did was very bad they didn't give any discussion to all his equities and this court has said in various cases that you have to give some discussion and not be so superficial and summary as to the equities well i mean the and nine there wasn't a slight sort of occasion when it was back with the board there was a science or vacation and it was filed with the with us c i s that's a positive factor that's not a negative factor they looked at the passage of time and they attributed as negative and if you look at the passage of time since his previous fa i mean our position would be that it's not rational because i mean he they they spend a paragraph saying that it was not a good thing and even the government agreed that yes it looked at the negative light so i'm not i'm not why would that be less positive because i was negative i'm not sure i think that that was they did this or did that with a positive equity and that this was a positive actually for him and they they looked at it in a negative manner without any reason to do so they looked at the passage of time instead of looking at the passage of time since his false testimony many years have passed since that no new bad acts have surfaced and yet they don't look at that passage of time as a positive equity they didn't look at the fact that these children didn't have any apparent other than this stepfather who had stepped up to take care of them that none of the fathers of those children were in their lives that he didn't look at any of that  explanation petitioner is now asking for an explanation of an explanation and that goes too far it is simply not required that the board go further than simply saying here is positive equities and it can see that these are significant positives here is negative equities and these are even more negative they outweigh the positive and therefore the motion should be denied on discretion do we know what the status of the u application is as far as i know it hasn't been ground it's not in the record that's right right as far as i know it has been granted still pending and what w i'm not one hundred percent sure of the result i think he might have to file another motion to reopen but i'm not sure i can file i guess i'm not asking for some outside your economic asking whether or not this ruling is reclusive with respect to the visa way the positive factors against the negative factors i take it the other side's argument is that there's not really a weighing here it's just a listing and then the board is saying there's a nice positive discretion is to decide which one is more weighty that's the way and part the part that this court has jurisdiction over is to make sure that the actual factors were considered which is what in the earlier decision here the court instructed the board said you didn't talk about is positive so you need to mention and show that you heard his positive factors which is what they did here they then they listed the factors that he put in his motion to reopen precisely they were a sponsor of to his motion he talked about his stepchildren its length of residency his work history in the night it states in the possibility that he could have your visa so that's what the board mentions that ok but we've been instructed to talk about these positive here these positives and we weigh them we find them to be significant positives but they are outweighed because of the decades of lying that go all the way up to the year two thousand  no discussion of the positive right that's the part that's in the board sole discretion is to determine whether or not these positives are outweighed the in thing we don't have authority to review the fact that there was no discussion it was just a listing of  i don't i don't but the court has also said that the board is not required to write an exit visas on every contention it simply needs to announce its decision in terms of fishing to be understood to say hey we've heard you we've heard these possibilities these were the equities that he listed in his motion  saying the board ok we've heard it and we find that to be outweighed could the board have a per se rule that said in weighing equities when you hide on an application we were always regard that is enough for us  your honor you asked if it was conclusive if the petition was denied the problem with that obviously would be that he would be subject to an immediate removal order and given the current administration he would be picked up immediately so you would be separating him from his and i'm not sure it has any relevance to your case you you both mentioned it in your briefing and there's no we don't know where it stands and that's why i was asking right but if the petition was denied to be a final order of a mobile and there's no stay in place and ice would come pick him up immediately so is very significant that the case is allowed to go forward on the visa and see what happens there before the case is completely denied in addition the government is wrong and s just wanted to point out that this court has several cases that have indicated that you can't have just a summary listing there has to be some kind of discussion watkins arizona and navarette and watkins is very very instructive in this case because there was a lot of fraud there there was a sham marriage the court had considered that and stood but they looked at the equities the fact that there was u s c spouse u s c children the child had a learning disability in that case that this court said that there was an abuse of discretion didn't consider i believe there was a very similar judge because they looked like this i believe it was very similar to this case because there was a there was a lot of fraud it was denied they filed a motion to reopen it was denied the fall another you know new circumstances and then they s some of the positives which is very much like this case in this here you were citing you for the proposition that they actually have to go into depth in the sky sing each factor that's not what it stands for  they did not do that all they did is just list exactly what the ninth circuit asked them to do is list out but they didn't discuss any of those equity thank you note of time thank you