cancellation of remove will for non permanent residence which requires ten years exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative moral character a favorable exercise of a judge's discretion and the focus of this appeal is no disqualifying crimes no hardship mentioned earlier is the most difficult factor so if we have an immigrant with a qualifying child with cerebral palsy or a critical heart condition or a qualifying parents who suffered a stroke and needs the immigrant to care for them the issue here is how much discretion do we give the court room judge to grant or deny that application in many cases also the applicant and their spouses are applying for this relief cancellation every move together as a married about the application of gonzalez gonzales vs ashcroft you're talking about something which while i'm horton doesn't really address the issue of your client's the crime of domestic violence which takes him out of  let's just say you're right we we're a three judge panel one of our three judge panel as this ruling goes all is going solid is that the statute under which your client was convicted of domestic violence makes  this ability should apply equally to the alien so argument is that if the government wants the disqualifying grounds of all the crimes to apply against an applicant for cancellation every rule then the exceptions to the is you're hanging your hat apparently on the idea that a crime of domestic violence is also a crime of moral moral turpitude and whether that's true or whether it's not  stand alone statutory provision and eleven twelve twenty seven that your client had been convicted of has nothing in that statute there's nothing in there about a petty offens right is not the real motion that you have before the fourth ok and that if you have a crime involving domestic violence you're not eligible to file that motion or you are not to get relief on that motion our case that's the argument here is that he is still basically that's you you are i gather conceding that unless somehow we can import the exception in one statute into an doesn't let you do what you want to do and you're arguing that well i don't says that but we'd like you to take the provision from this one statute and put it in another statute and that'll solve the problem and we're saying hey you know we're empathetic but how do we do that i inadmissible alyan who has been convicted of a crime involving of a crime of domestic violence excuse me is in fact an eligible case solution of removal the board is bound to follow this court's precedent it has no other choice it did so here so it cannot logically be considered to have abused its discretion by denying the motion free open we may be able to clarify some of the confusion in this case by going over the history seven twelve twenty seven eight to be and that is under twelve twenty seven eighty seven and it pertains to aliens who have been convicted of a crime of domestic violence but in fact have also been victims of domestic so congress will very much aware of this yet they chose not to incorporate the petty offenses exception but what do you say to mr jacobs argument that twelve twenty seven applies only to removable aliens and eleven eighty two applies to inadmissible inadmissible one hundred twelve twenty seven eight two the crime has to be committed within a certain period of time of your admission into the country so they're not exactly the same at any rate there's no indication of congress ever intended the t with or already have lawful permanent resident status and therefore too you know to argue that that the petty offense exception was explicitly omitted from that and that somehow can be traced back to this cancellation of