four eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal including as relevant here that his us citizens on junior would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if his father were to be deported establish such hardship the i j a must and here did consider a number of factors in the aggregate such as the age and health of the child the minute educational opportunity is and how a lower standard of living might affect the why they were clearly erroneous i applying the wrong legal standard to the hard to term a nation i'm making its own fact finding and by mischaracterizing the record why errors of the law that clear standard that its own regulations require and apply instead of the b i stated that it is not clear from the evidence what jobs will be available and for what salary the idea is decision does not say that it is applying the clear error standard and it plainly did not acquire that standard instead it was analyzing the evidence and knew it was not identifying precisely how the i j a in making its findings and it did diminished economic circumstances do not generally rise to the level of exceptional extremely or unusual hardship to a relative and then seem to just disagree with the conclusion that the i j a reached so was that not would not be able to limit the fission fund to support junior's basic needs and in doing that what is stating his thing there's no evidence indicating that the respondent has looked into finding what in honduras and that's simply not a legally sufficient justification i j doesn't explain how the i j a erred and this court has held and when that that is necessary if the b i is going to overturn a fact finding in need to explain why it's doing so in need to explain why they are clearly erroneous know even assuming that the i j a facts are correct then says diminished economic circumstances would not generally rise to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship so aren't they saying basically even if one does not this beat that fact found by the i j it does not meet the legal standard for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship and would you not agree that this sort of legal really know because the idea is not providing sufficient justification which again this quote has held is necessary in order for the b i to overturn a fact finding made by the i j and turning to the next  your honor the governing statute requires that the be i consider rather removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the qualifying relatives this is a forward looking inquiry and the a must make an assessment of the future effect on the minor relative were the petitioner to be removed permanently now in this case the i j a focused on the correct inquiry and found that mr  so the i j a may know findings as to junior's preexisting condition and when we say preexisting condition we mean prior to his father's detention and that's because she didn't need to because the statute requires a forward looking inquiry here at the bottom of page two of this decision it finds that junior was functioning normally prior to his father's incarceration now the report simply does not state that what the bay is doing here and i would point this court to it but it really only focuses on the parts of the report that discusses how junior was acting one his father was around and actually not once in its decision does it really discuss the diagnosis of junior's major depressive disorder or adjustment twenty two they stated that there's no evidence that the depression and anxiety experienced by the respondents on existed prior to the respondents immigration proceedings and responding to that we discussed the testimony and the evidence in the record that junior did have a preexisting condition but regardless of what you see me saying that because then they would be a sort of responded to that issue that had been joined that was improper simply does not analyze that it does not analyze the future hardship and that was a convincing report that really analyzed change at the most pro but if point when he had already been separated from his father for a few months and instead of focusing on the probative aspects of that report that the i a f focusing solely on how junior was socializing before his father was you know separated from him and i put it i am regina byrd and i'm representing the respondent united states attorney general we st like to address the contention that the board engaged in improper  regulation makes clear that the board does not have the noble review over an immigration judge but finding that is the part of the regulation that the is the correctly noted that the boy did not address the standard but was went on to recognize that there's no law requiring the board to address and simply state the standard we know that that petition or spell to protect the court any law that requires it or regulation and what i want to argue if we do now that in terms of the board's immigration judge is finding that the board did in fact look at the findings in general under the clearly  off discussing it sounded like this issue was raised before the v a for the st time and argument i gather is that point to be a instead of making the conclusion  that junior was functioning normally before that maybe it could have said even if even assuming the report for or maybe remanding to for further fact finding instead of drawing its own conclusion the medical treatment that mr d s was concerned about being able to afford for his united states to the rd front in the bathtub was a question here because mr b here is the paying for the medical treatment but you know i that again i'm just a noble authority look at the record evidence and found that there was no evidence that the hard hit meaning the emotional and mental hardship that the s the requirement of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship this case is actually controlled but this course this isn't and the love bega there this court set forth the  spendable which is great about this court is made clear that if those have jurisdiction over legal questions yeah they might like being didn't were rarely expand our notion of what can what constitutes a legal question of the sun did not have a mental or emotional condition doesn't that kind of put you in a pickle because you're either trying to argue against the defendant or the petitioner here and say no no no look they didn't engage in right that's another way of saying look we're just going to take the i j a set of facts as a given which kind of would put you into the world of guerrero saying no look there's pretty much an undisputed factual record and our only issue here  law and those areas of the law are are areas that this court has jurisdiction to review this the be i am still have to accept the fact findings or if it believes that more condition prior to the detention so that the i a e a was not really weighing facts at the i j a made because the i j a didn't make those fat findings if the b i really believed that it needed to know what junior was