remit and for a new proceedings st as to cancellation of removal the board applied in a legal standard of truly compelling countervailing equity is nearly identical to a standard that both the board and this court d if maybe you can curse the words if it but if i look at what the b i did it seemed that say they found this menace and  them as extremely dangerous crimes and also talked about i know you've tried to address your alcoholism but you haven't been successful you keep getting duis and you know that i'm considering all of the evidence and it's a discretionary decision and saying i'm basically don't think i'm you know i'm not going to let you stay and go out there and kill someone because you haven't addressed your consider those mitigating circumstances their taxis there are things there are other people who drive you know those are excuses but they're not necessarily mitigating circumstances well i know the board erred here in not even mentioning them and you know  climate based on that circumstance in the abstract so with the board set in so tell it was you know in any balancing test various factors whether positive or negative are accorded more weight than others according to the specific facts of the individual case scene between that case specific balancing and requiring the applicant to demonstrate outstanding equity is just based on that negative circumstance in the abstract so instead board has to weigh the favor adverse factors in the totality of the evidence and that's what the board here failed to do so if you look at bottom of a r five you know i mentions do you eyes and says they're very serious but short circuited the analysis by at that point saying just based on the presence of just you know weighing duis heavily that requires this court to vacate and remained for the board to clarify its analysis so we know that this court's opinion in where the i j a said you know in some cases may have to what the board said was sometimes violence against gays and lesbians so for instance the human rights report at a r seven hundred and thirty eight says there are you know hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation remain all too common  sexual abuse of people by police there routinely stopped and physically assaulted the l a times article says you know there's numerous reports of violence based on sexual orientation and the two thousand and sixteen state department report which was introduced at the board you know mentioned a survey of gays and lesbians that said sixty percent of them reported knowing someone who had been murdered so you know when i'm on the board said there was sometimes violence against gays and lesbians i think that misstates the record is not about  evidence and importantly you know the record here is very similar to what this court encountered in bromfield so bromfield the country report noted that there was you know a culture of discrimination but not just that it also noted that there were numerous cases of violence against persons based on sexual orientation including by police and it described the problem as widespread and the board characterized that record as just random acts of violence this court said that was incorrect not supported by special evidence this court said those statements compelled a finding of a pattern or practice of persecution against gays and lesbians and so you know the record is very similar there as it is here so we think also same function i think so your honor thank you or we could have sensitive information yes this is just describe it generally so if you get a memorandum disposition that says it's crap mitigating circumstances you'll know that we're talking about this since that information that you did not want i think that's don't wait in line and you know you're taking opportunities that belong to others i think indicates that he's not fairly applying the law to the facts of this case as if to be correctly apply the law then how not right and you have a right to an unbiased adjudicator at every stage and what are you relying upon for the proposition that the statements that were made by the the immigration judge in this case constitute evidence i mean you know and rise melendez what this court said was that i jay's bias against people of kids out of wedlock prevented him from fairly weighing the hardship to as children and that's all that we have to show here i think  much please the court i'm rick kelly representing the attorney general your honor this court lacks generally jurisdiction over discretionary denials of cancellation of removal and in this case i believe that the board properly evidence and in doing so it also cured many of the evidence or issues that the petitioner pointed out specifically i would like to respond to some of the points made by the petition percent of the testimony and use that kind of and his weighing of the factors were s and here st of all i don't think there is sufficient evidence of bias the part in the record where the petitioner points to i actually in the explanation of the law section of the opinion of his opinion so he's basically just trying to set the standard for what the petitioner has to me in that case which in the remeron taurus versus ashcroft case this court noted that congress changed its definition from extreme hardship to exceptional and extremely unusual hardship so i think all the idea was trying to do was really set the stage for that higher threshold that they would have to show i terms of the hardship setting i don't think he meant to make any sort of moral judgments of the petitioner and anything in any sense the board effectively mooted that concern by genova reviewing the hardship evidence it's correct in that if there is a structural kind of error bias and the hearings for example if it kind of infected the whole proceedings here there was no allegation by the petitioner that the actual proceedings were affected they just kind of right corrects in light of the disciplinary action against him and found that no evidence had been presented to show that really is a wrecking and ice disease across the medical community is that basically it yes your honor was that error or was that corrected or what was yes your honor because the board recognized all of that evidence that she had presented  so effectively correct it was it was cured in addition i think the one of the major errors of the i g was actually nor did other crawford of evidence in the record that actually wasn't affiliated with dr right which the problems correct your honor i do was kind of only only aired in regards to the specific diagnosis of bradley he still actually did way the other kind of medical evidence on the record but he decided that the petitioner's wife would be able to receive treatment for those conditions in and san diego or if they lived in a border town in the in the united states across the border yes which was noted by the corps and that was one of the reasons for rejecting that standard however in this case if you look at the context it's really just a concluding kind of in the section where it talks about those negative equities so it's in a sense they were just kind of impressing upon the applicant that look this is really these are really high activities and the board even in the next sentence states again clearly it is to outstanding equities which has been said for a boat i mean it was a mistake wasn't your honor it is unclear why the board shoes to use those particular words i mean the board's decision did  some matters to tell us so tell us so presumably they were aware of these kind of issues and these decisions but again i think it's just it's basically one of the concluding sentences i think that they were just kind of weighing you know summing up why they rejected it based on discretion but the i also said she had not previously been persecuted or tortured in mexico but my understanding of the evidence that she lacked and she was so with that conclusion or no your honor the generally analysis always starts with past persecution even in this court's cases it noted it's notes where you know if they if the person suffered past prosecution just because it's always a separate issue and it can lead to or bought a presumption of future persecution so i don't think there is any sort of i think the important thing is he there is no evidence the board or the  that's actually a fact around or the regulations that should be considered and i think just simply noting if the op can suffer past torture as it's important to show that they did a thorough analysis as long as they don't there's think is good because it shows how petitioners can prove the well founded fear standard but still not meet the clear probability standard and in that case there were actual threats made to the petitioner and she still was not able to meet  observation that these comments were made in the context of sending the framework for the hearing is supposed to is are the rendering the decision what your response what there's no a case that they cite that you know comments indicating b of the discussion in the case since opposed here do you think that makes a difference i know you're on i don't i think even one comment indicating by is can be sufficient and frankly where that bias is in framing the legal standard you know that's the issue