s citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse parent or child will suffer extreme hardship if they were forced to relocate it or if he is forced to be deported the immigration judge denied his case on the sole ground that the level of hardship the children saw her was not a strange and unusual this is the point that both the immigration court and the board your own generally this court lacks jurisdiction in regards to discretionary issues however in this case the petitioner is not subject to this bar because the exception lies where there is a question of a constitutional issue or a question of law this case here the board in the board has always considered the factors when establishing a cancellation of rule one of the factors specifically country conditions which were clearly laid out in the record in this case both the immigration judge and the board of appeals fail to consider the conditions of the coast of mexico when making their determination of whether be relocated to mexico it's clearly an error because the record clearly shows that the petitioner and his attorney addressed the conditions of mexico and in the administrative record which clearly states also mexico is an extremely dangerous place to live because there are so much violence and the police seem powerless to stop the criminals i am afraid that mexico is the most dangerous now than it was when i st came to the us fifteen years ago i fear for my children's safety because i know that american citizens and people returning from the us are targeted or kidnapped for r and ninety eight clearly stating also mexico is an extremely dangerous place to live because there are so much violence and the police seem powerless to stop the criminals i know that m honor it is anyone who is a us citizen or returning national which is an inherent asked back in the cancellation of removal case in determining hardship to the us citizen relatives so everybody qu mean but in essence the exceptional and extraordinary hardship the board has previously listed in new york needed factors that qualify as an extreme hardship in countr conditions is one of them and it's very important for us to consider that countries conditions before we send out u s citizens or green card holders to live there indefinitely so you've been telling us about what was in the record before the immigration judge did you address the government's worried that this was not raised basically meeting that the board was supposed to look at the record entirely and then make as the terminations and the board fail to consider the numerous statements submitted are also addressed the safety conditions in mexico they've basically ignored to that whole factor and jumped into the medical the school the another way of  least address issues that have even briefly been addressed in the briefs or in the arguments i mean a section is not necessarily needed to be devoted on a specific factor when  factories needs to be considered and as long as it's a drag it's i feel like that is enough for the poor to say well yes it is address country conditions is an issue here is why i'm being that either applies or doesn't apply i hope that answered your your question judge well i mean our case law routinely says that arguments that are raised only records that are raised noted passing only briefly not really developed for rubio thank you of for very specific arguments to the board regarding hardship about what he claimed the immigration judge allegedly did not consider these included arguments relating to number one his wife's depression employment opportunities medical care and education st children none of these arguments claims that the immigration judge failed to adequately consider the conditions of crime in mexico in his decision the board addressed each and every one of promises arguments in turn and ultimately agreed with the immigration judge determination now in his opening brief mister broad his claims of integration in the board failed to adequately consider issues relating to crime relating to crime in mexico as i went through the entire argument section of mister broad as his brief to the board and there's nothing in that section in any of those arguments about crime in mexico number two the board does do it in overview of the same time the agency is to answer that question we don't think it was raised and number two the agency doesn't have to enumerate every single piece of evidence that is raised to it so you don't they just have a point the immigration judge that was her argue that it was raised before the immigration judge and there i believe was i do believe it was raised for the immigration judge i agree with that but the immigration judge did consider that evidence of crime in mexico in her decision it's at page sixty eight dollars of the record immigration judge notes the high crime rate in mexico and she notes that mister ross has concerns relating to crime in mexico if mister brown has had some issue with the way the immigration judge address crime in mexico then his obligation was to raise that to the board again he raised four very specific arguments relating to hardship to the board the board addressed every single one of them in turn and agree with the immigration judge determination the board didn't enumerate every single to the board and the board was not required to specifically address a potential argument and was required to otherwise it numerate every single piece of evidence that was addressed that was submitted to the immigration judge so for all these reasons the government believes the petition for you should be denied thank you very much counsel the case will be taken under advisement and the court will be