that's the exact quote they were aware at least of the fact yes but they completely ignored the fact that his lack of status directly to mahler's having to take children back to china because they have no opportunity to remain in the us no close relatives they have to leave nevertheless the courts found that this is not either it's not a factor or it doesn't matter what they didn't understand how was directly related to the for the i j a and at the level the agency is this is assuming that she is taking her children back to china and doing the hardship evaluation i believe that's what they did and that's on there as well because additional stated that she would take children to china because there's no opportunity for children to remain here of course in the ideal situation she would leave children here considering a variety of medical issues educational problems and ability to register the household register in china so there's a variety of factors that would probably lead her to leave children here explain explain to me why you be a comparison to other people in similar circumstances because when you evaluate the factors of hardship you have to compare necessarily this to other people in similar circumstances the standard is how would this be an extremely unusual hardship compared to other people who are being deported so some people may have an opportunity to leave children here and that would not be a hardship to the children because remember that kargil is only two qualifying said the children can remain with their father in the united states so this is not such a hardship but the agency said that the children were going to return to china and considered the hardships they might face because they would return to china going to school at a later age having medical conditions that might be treated differently they may not have done enough with those factors but they considered them so i guess i'm also having typical seeing how they were prejudiced with regard have some traction but that doesn't seem to be to be the argument the precise argument that was presented maybe you should move to the other so this was a it's a balancing factor of various arguments various factors was inability of the children to register for household register and i think it was just glossed over by the by the b i and the i j simply say that it's not really hard sure because are thirteen million people in china that are not registered well thirteen million in china is probably less than one percent of the population that most registered for a variety of reasons that would be not registered because they're in jail or for m reasons so here we're talking about u s citizen children who have zero status in china they're not chinese citizens in china just this means that they're not they don't have access to educational and health opportunities the same as a chinese citizen what in other words they don't have access to public schools they have to pay out of pocket for schools the same with health benefits and that's directly related to the medical condition and i think there's a lot of documents that were submitted in this case that demonstrates how important cultural register is in china and that it is a very restrictive society where everything is control the population is controlled and social benefits i don't doubt based on the registration negative family unity cases generally when a person when they consider a hardship claim they look at whether or not the family is going to stay together or where they're not going to be apart and in this case the family was going to stay together so they couldn't really determine how much did was decided that she had not her birth had not met her burden of showing that registration is denied to foreign born children there's absolutely nothing in the record that suggests or references foreign born children other than the discussions that the petitioner has with yes correct so some persons actually are registered and they are required to still pay fees and benefits there are people that are unregistered able to actually have access to these benefits and there's relaxed restrictions placed on those individuals so without any evidence with regard to petitioners actual hometown the immigration judge has found it very difficult to determine whether or not hardship is going to be established in this particular  more correct the absence from of correct the absence of evidence made it difficult to make a determination with regard to petition or start argument on a thirty million people i think that our unit was also mischaracterized in a sense that they didn't rely on a thirteen million people on register what they what the immigration judge pointed to was that there were thirteen million people that were unregistered in two thousand and ten and that out of those people only some people were had restricted access to public benefits and up to a reference was to the two thousand and fifteen just i know nothing about this but would you agree that being on which has some impact yes but it's relative to your locale i mean there's no way of knowing unless it's really get more information about what happens in the risk of a verse financial or non financial harmful impact is increasing in numbers the i would i would not even as i wouldn't say that either i would say that recognize that the ghost children are the children who were born out of wedlock and efforts to conceal were not the only individuals that were in that number but that only some local officials actually prevented them are pleading for having access and although it wasn't raised in the argument if you look at the record what suggested there is relax and force me in her particular hometown is the fact that she is actually a child with two other siblings so with child in it with china has a one child policy and usually they're restricted or supposed be denied access if you exceed these provisions but petitioner has not come forward to claim that they've suffered any kind of restrictions based on violation of the policy in her own hometown argument is speculative she does not know she was given an opportunity and was asked if she asked her parents about the registration in her hometown and she didn't think it was important to know at this time because she didn't she wasn't removed yet but they did ask her during  hearing and although she was given plenty of opportunity to inquire about the availability of medical services they are what types of jobs are available in her hometown what the income or the average income of people are in her hometown  even as you're going to make a claim about the harm that what you can't do for present evidence yes provide some evidence to show that you can't find a job some evidence that you can't get medical care some evidence that your children can't be registered and she has not done any of that here are they going to submit the evidence of population i mean to pollution and her children's health circumstances which leads me to my last point with regard to ignoring key evidence of her stance respiratory indoor season or indoor air quality issues but if you look at the record the agency did not overlook the information if you look at the immigration judge's decision that the immigration judge actually cites to that portion of the record  as as the portions of the record that she reviewed or he reviewed in order to determine whether an app pollution was going to be an issue for this particular complainant what the immigration judge did find out is that the record shows that pollution is a problem but it has not been shown or she has that shown as a problem in her hometown but the record clearly shows that is the issue in urban cities and in the northern parts of china and while the immigration judge didn't take administrative notice of where she lived she was asked if her home town had an issue with pollution and she did not offer any information any at environmental information about her particular home state  and she has kind of failed to meet her burden of proving that pollution will be a problem that her foreign born children cannot be registered that she's unable to find a job she's not able to show that she will be denied public access  to services and even if she was denied or wasn't registered she can't show that she couldn't afford those services because she hasn't provided any employment information of what's available in her hometown and based on her testimony she claims that she comes from an industrial nothing is going to happen that well i thought i was trying to get this court case placed on p d myself but apparently about prosecutorial discretion to kind of table the case and i was informed by p h s that they weren't willing to entertain it in this particular situation you didn't hear from me yes clearly not in every case just like any other country you know that you can choose i guess when you want to take they do accept someone else right but but it is my problem because it's my client who is in the immediate danger of being deported and any time i have cases when ice officers will come to their home arrest them and the next day they want to pla yes and we get no prior notice should be picked up and along the line minimize this at all and it is a problem there via one sense but it's a little troubling because my understanding now is confirmed is that the people's republic of china they do happen and in my client's case it's very dramatic because she's been here for seventeen years has two children who have never been to china and that's another factor because sometimes chinese sent kids to china and judges get upset about it when people apply for benefits when children are in china but these children never been to china they are not familiar with of the country not familiar with the language even because they speak when chinese dialect and education in chinese and mandarin so it i with respect to the registration issue your client was given the opportunity to let the i j a know what locality she was prepared to return to and also what the registration regime  was in that locality and failed to provide any record of it's very hard to determine what the correct that's correct with we don't know what this particular town will do when sure advance home but what we because people in china able to live this way will be no hardship to petition or and the judge actually used there is that we did not indicate that her children would not be able to live good lives in china so i d what judge you consider to be a good life in china considering the evidence presented