faith i don't understand where you go and even if i agree that that this was cruelty whether or not she was mexico have to be in a present relationship she does not have to be presently battered under the valid suspension of deportation regulations she merely has to have been here only she must have been subject to battery or extreme cruelty just part of the cycle of violence which qualifies within the domestic violence which which can be which can fall within the extreme cooking provision especially when you look at the regulation fact i think it must be read that way because the statute states that she has to have been subject to battery or extreme cruelty and i think that this is the regulations and the immigration service other abusive actions may also be acts of violence under certain circumstances including acts which and of themselves may not initially appear violent but are part of an overall pattern of violence family and his violent tendencies towards her by pursuing her there coming there and then using coercive tactics psychologically  i am opinion was very explicit and i'll plug some of the language from that opinion they say almost totally to address whether she was subject to any cruelty extreme or otherwise in the united states only assume for purposes of the statute and for the purposes of extreme cruelty that the family has to occur in this country in order for there to be extreme cruelty in this country and that very simply and this reading of the statute and is in the record points to the fact that mr hernandez had an approved these attention she has several letters from the immigration service which gave her a priority date you don't get a priority date unless you have an approved this the petition there's no argument by counsel that these documents are fraudulent these are documents that came from the u s government different agencies that are you know as it is that she has not produce records which she has no control over she has not produced the approval notice she's not entitle to have that approval notice because of the petition of the husband to abuse her the government could get approval notice it made some effort that it was not successful it but it wasn't unsuccessful it simply said we tried we haven't heard anything the burden in this case when you have a victim of domestic violence who is seeking adjustment really ought to be on the government to produce the records over which  circuit case that permits this kind of ruling and especially when you look in the context of the fact that this is a domestic violence situation of course the marriage is not viable fact is that there is a good movie version now it would not be the first time but that's actually my point on the eligibility issue of the arguments being made to you that if the immigration bureaucracy works the way it's supposed to this compels a conclusion with insufficient yes yes that's our argument the now on the discretionary aspect of the adjustment issue i respectfully disagree with my colleague on how you read those four decision was brought to the united states by a lawful permanent resident or citizen husband and then found herself in a terrible domestic situation found herself trapped found herself with nowhere to go the suspension and adjustment of status never lived in the us with us where no one knows what the spouse is at the time of the hearing is lucerne and as had not heard from her husband three years did not know where he was there was no evidence that he was threatening any of her relatives in mexico including her children by previous mean i'm not arguing that the boards presidents wouldn't apply in a sit in in a situation that was truly applicable to but here we've got a situation that really is the congress of the usual sed adjustment or usual suspension situation here we have a situation it away from us that's correct your honor and that she in order to get my point is really a simple one in order to make the discretionary determination whether she was entitled on these facts whether it was are not entitled t four and my are my colleagues arguments under section two forty five are focused on and it's clear from the literature it's clear from congress of the legislative history the congress was focusing on situations where a woman was brought here to this country by her by her husband through marriage and then he came and had nowhere to go she was trapped economically trashed psychologically trashed emotionally frappe culturally perhaps of divorce was a stigma and her religion that's not this case  reason stayed in america i don't know why that is she wasn't a good relationship in this country to a person who was a lawful permanent resident there are ways that she could obtain relief through him if she chose argument has been made by my by my colleague that the board did not sufficiently articulate a separate finding under the extreme extreme cruelty part of the statute and therefore if nothing else simpler case that's still the ultimate discretionary determination to do but we would have a much simpler case on eligibility they came into the case in order to make the argument that his visit to los angeles and his persuasion of her to return with him to mexico was part of acknowledged that fact it knew that the the issue was there before it and it made the ultimate finding that neither extreme cruelty or battery within the u s had been established and i think that's sufficient all for both parts of the statute and having seen that i think the board wasn't title to use the same convenient shorthand in determining the case as long as the board made it clear that i understood the argument being made to it were were minor oratorical they certainly were not but the the the question of the board had before it was well what about the significance of constance very brief contacts with the u and he persuaded her to allow him to come to see her in los angeles that's all she said there was no allegation no testimony there's no evidence that he threatened her and making these telephone calls is no testimony that he said if you me come see you i will harm your children i will harm your mother i will throw your belongings out into the street i will harm your relatives here mexico there's simply nothing in this record along that line she  be coerced it's again it's a question of of the eye of the beholder but the testimony is simply that he persuaded her to come back to mexico with them then there was no chance that if you sweet nothing fact is they didn't get it and response that said there are no such documents the record leaves open the question of whether ever they even got a response and i believe the record at page three shorthand surely a court does not render a decision in shorthand which other courts have to interpret in which the public has to rely on that would be a violation of due process and this notion of shorthand simply cannot be the basis for a finding that the i a e a made a determination that extreme cruelty never made a determination period in fact it occurred as a matter of la position is that it should be viewed as one does an asylum claim and persecution there's a subjective component what is the victim feel was extreme cruelty and then one should have an objective component in which the court  analyzes the law as it is get invited immigration service in congress and social science research it should look to international law to determine how the larger community views the question of extreme  immigration judges and b and i panels who have no understanding of domestic violence independently they must be relying on a larger experience than their own personal experience is really not what congress intended congress intended and informed educated discussion of that extreme cruelty and did not intend it to be a completely discretionary determination