we have a number of issues in this case and i imagine that as a practical matter once we get this this far down the road are some of those items and at some point that he be free to travel with his family if it means to out of the country but we can't get there and the litigation that's gone on both with the immigration judge as well as the bo may we found ourselves several years back in front of the immigration judge who attended to the case that looked at the initially the asylum case and then at some point as to the question as to whether he would allow the posture now to hold to look at the entire record and say well let's let's have the immigration judge look at this case again and make a determination whether he is in fact eligible for cancellation of removal based on the fact that we have and at the same time as a practical matter make a determination if the agency now provides for a vehicle whereby he can apply for any other alternate and individuals with the charging document that we know it's a notice to appear so jurisdiction would jurisdiction on that particular case it would be properly before the immigration court so this court order finds that revisit that cancellation and maybe the not only cancellation will be revisited but that we will be able to take a look at whatever other form of relief is available to him there's a copy of his wife's permanent resident card and looking at that those you know again recognize in the eligibility for citizenship we know that individuals that have been in the country for five years with a green card they become eligible to make an application for naturalization there may be at some point there may be the an immediate relative benefit for him and i share this with the court and i take the time that i have for the argument  think we've laid out the various issues that are raised in our briefs but i think that and making a decision here that we should give we should give some consideration to looking a what happens to this family is a practical matter i think that this court has the authority to be able to have have this case sent back to the immigration judge have them take a look at the availability of relief under cancellation and recognizing that there is relief that is maturity as a result of all these other applications knowing that as a practical matter we're making the right decision we are looking at all the the question the question of whether  the issue of eligibility for cancellation was actually raised i think those issues there as we look at what the board looked at the transcript that we have we recognize that there was initially an application for asylum for a mexican national i think that having taken charge of the case back then we were able to a lot to advise the court  application that maybe shouldn't be considered at this junction this is there's other issues here let's move on i think when the court granted voluntary departure and there was no appeal to the grant a voluntary departure by family what i'd like to do you briefly is just address a lot of i think applies here the supreme court and dorothy made clear that the board of immigration appeals has considerable discretion to deny rem those concerns apply with particular force and the removal contact because in the removal context after all what the alien is seeking is to stay in the united states so the question here is whether the board abused its discretion by not remanding because the board held that cancellation was a remedy that mr zamora better have applied for the first time around now in his brief to this court and in his brief to the board this years and more and makes the argument that's incorrect because new evidence became available after the immigration judge hearing that allowed him for the first time to apply for cancellation have made those exact same arguments in support of cancellation and just as mr barry v a got presented a variety of different kinds of evidence in the absence of of strictly speaking documentation of his presence in the streets and work with have done gotten it he might not of could have applied and no remand is necessary to allow him to apply i would just like to take briefly to mention a couple of things that i think are not properly presented here just to be clear about it one is the argument in mr zamora's brief that the immigration judge violated a regulation by not advising him that he appeared to be eligible for cancellation mr zamora did not argue got to the board therefore not exhausted and under a variety of cases of this court it's clear that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider that the final thing that i would say if your honour's don't have any questions is that i don't know what the current status