very straight for the issue is whether the agency in this case the board of immigration appeals ignore material evidence and its own precedent in analyzing that harshit stand contend that they did and so i want to start by going over the elements that the immigration appeals only precedents say they have to consider when analyzing harsha and pieces of evidence that are clear to us from the record were ignored by the agency so st i want to talk about the psychological assessment that in the middle without objection severe depression and personality disorders but also explains what those illnesses are and how they affected and how much more  affected if you were to assessment also the board specifically noted that you had not shown that you could not obtain treatment for your excitedly and depression in mexico why isn't that sufficient that he has and the severe anxiety and depression that he has but he saw it also ignored what the assessment sets right to two parts of it that i want to point out for  court that show that he would have a very hard time if not impossible time finding treatment in mexico st it says at this level of illness it is impossible to solve problems mentally ill in their institutions that should be treating the mentally ill there's serious human rights abuses which include lack of access to justice the use of physical and chemical restraint physical  sexual abuse trafficking forced labor and disappearance so this to point out some there is also testimony by him and other parts of the record that show he said ability a lot why wouldn't that statement be sufficient again because in it it's contradicted by the evidence and it also mischaracterizes the issue and the problem facing so for example before we go any further down that road i have a threshold question about jurisdiction here cancellation of removal is a discretionary decision and as such is unreviewable we have jurisdiction only our legal questions there is constitutional challenges and these cases often present to try to fit that limitation as arguments that the board ignored certain evidence because we have precedent that says that if the argument is framed as one that the agency ignored evidence that's a legal question and that's that's a very difficult line to draw because it's a question of the adequacy of the board's consideration of a certain category of evidence  can be characterized on the one hand it's as a question of sufficiency or adequacy we don't have authority to review that that that's the board has discretion to to wait different categories of evidence in different ways and we don't we don't have jurisdiction to review the adequacy of its decisions in that regard or it can be characterized as well the board ignored this piece of evidence the board ignored that piece of evidence and that's a legal issue and that try to fit the case within the framework that this court has said constitutes a legal challenge rather than a sufficiency challenge or a challenge to the discretionary weight that the agency has given particular pieces of evidence why does this case fall on the reviewable side as opposed to the non reviewable side i see it frankly as a challenge to the adequacy of the board's consideration of the mental health evidence and and the other categories of evidence that's that's just unreviewable and that would be a jurisdictional problem so there's three things that one dress conclusion is based on an exercise of discretion to give certain weight to certain categories of evidence we don't have jurisdiction to reweigh the evidence and that's exactly with this court has said it's not an exercise of not an exercise of this question it's a mistake it's a legal heir and that's what the seven ill case champion says about jurisdiction there's another very important point that i want to make sure doesn't get lost in the pages of of argument the stand she gives non citizens the right to file evidence and in a case which is this one where that evidence was admitted but no objection but by the parties   evidence for material factors in allies in the case is not a legal error those two things cannot be true at the same time and that is consistent with what this court has hell in every ca related to a challenge and a good faith claim that the agency ignore material evidence champion is one of them lam is another one that is also very actually similar to this case but also any evidence to support his claim and the only argument that he was presenting is that he wasn't on notice that huge should trial documentary evidence that the fork out and persuasive the path to showing that the agency her thought and reason the evidence cannot be by mis correct arising the evidence in the record which is a board of immigration appeals and that's exactly what they've done the lamp for example in lam is not like they didn't talk about their relatives depression they said depression after the birth of the  child but that wasn't that yeshu that she was facing a little she was facing issues with depression after the birth of st st child and she was facing depression there after and obviously that change what the me illness made to her in her life and what that would have what would happen to her if the result same thing here it's actual evidence that the board of immigration appeals  not consider the psychological assessment nor any of the evidence showing what my client illnesses are and how they affect him and how much more they would affect him if he is removed because he doesn't have severe he doesn't have depression anxiety he has p t s d personality disorder severe ones that are chronic and severe anxiety and depression severe depression as well those change his ability to function at a basic level the report makes that clear over and over and over again it says he has conscience socially he cannot function occupationally he cannot function at a personal level and this is going to be exacerbated if he is removed because he's going to lose the world frankly the country that he knows for the past twenty years when he came here as a child and also lose the family network that he mexico there is a very detailed human rights report which is kind of a standard of evidence that the agency agrees should always be consider and specifically that the administrative record page institutions that exist which treat mental illness says actually end up abusing the patients themselves they end up using sickly harming them sexually abusing that they're played by human rights abuses of the type in the military is a general statement by all facilities how many it says it's a widespread problem you  mexico is your client from from the state of durango choose the north side of the country yes or no is there any location specific evidence with respect to what he's liable to face a matter of the country so when he gets of the bus it says the durango is one of the most dangerous states in the entire country that actually department of state also has a trouble warning to this particular state it says do not go reckon siddur going  if only we're not looking at the standard of is this person going to be physically harmed that's not the standard that this particular form of relief requires we're looking at how much harder would be for him and so the report all of them the a psychological assessment the human rights or for ringback the studies by by the universities articles news articles all make the case very clearly that he gets on the bus he cannot have a residents and then in it has a section below specifically addressing spousal abuse and the standard is meant to be lower so for the conventional cancellation of removal the standard is exceptional mention the difference and the particular specifics of this case and why this particular the circumstances of his abuse and his mental illness make a difference it did not even understand what his mental illnesses were but is actually asking this court to reweigh the evidence which is exactly what this court held in laughter sticks there are six places in the agency decision that mentions either mental illness or this for the st one is in the b i opinion it talks about how the hardship is cumulative and it references the mental illness then no physical or mental impairment it specifically mentions depression that the board in its decision adopted and affirms the immigration judges and analysis and reasoning so rough matter mischievous that it doesn't address or mention the severity of the issues no the finding that petitioner did not have to show extreme hardship to him and therefore tonight's special rule cancellation therefore that is there is no legal error and without legal error this court last year  ok and now we have and we've been discussing for instance whether or not there's a sufficient to coming to grips with the statutory standard for domestic violence and whether the agency came knowledge that  question right you do have jurisdiction your honor and even if which the government respectfully disagrees even if this court were to finally go air petition or did not show extreme hardship that's the only issue before this court is extreme hardship because that's the only thing that the agency ruled on and he did not show extreme hardship to him which is what is at question and that is what must be evaluated is it must be to is to show extreme hardship petition imma show what is  about the extreme hardship and then if you reference fifty three and the board's decision it's a while weak knowledge of the country conditions in mexico compute violent and dangerous responding has not meaningfully shown he would based violence or danger in his home country and this is a good point to note that this is petitioners burden to prove special cancellation of removal and so those two places you're on i want to go back to a statement you made a moment ago you said if they have claimed legal air and if we find no legal error we dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or denied the petition if we find