*1 Before B AUER P OSNER , F LAUM , Circuit Judges . P OSNER Circuit Judge . Before us a petition refusal Appeals removing (i.e., deporting) petitioner, Ricardo Sanchez, a by petitioner stay pending definitive ruling petition, finally statement by Department Justice opposing both motion.

An illegal immigrant, Sanchez conceded his removability at hearing immigration judge, but applied for cancellation removal for nonpermanent residents. See U.S.C. § 1229b(b). To obtain that relief he had show that he had been physically present in the United States for at least years and that during that period he was person good moral character. Id. He also had establish that his would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hard ship” his U.S. citizen children. Id. (He has children, ages eight years, six years, and fifteen months, and lives with them his wife, also lacks legal resident status.)

He testified he was primary breadwinner for his family, having worked at same pizza restaurant for past eighteen years, he feared his would wreak extreme hardship children because he wouldn’t able provide for family wages would earn Mexico. He admitted having been con victed four times past sixteen years driving under influence, had twice violated conditions bond.

The immigration judge concluded because DUI convictions Sanchez had failed demonstrate good moral character. immigration judge also concluded Sanchez establish would result exceptional extremely unusual hardship chil dren, because unable answer questions about whether family follow Mexico. And so immigration judge denied application cancellation removal. appealed Appeals,

which, agreeing immigration judge, dismissed *3 17 1673 3 appeal. filed a timely motion the Board to reo ‐ pen appeal; represented by new counsel, argued original counsel had failed to prepare for hearing before the immigration judge. As a result had to tes ‐ tify two older children are native English speakers speak little Spanish; third child, who had not yet been born at the time of the hearing, has been diagnosed delayed motor development, requiring months weekly physical therapy; filed tax returns for preceding several years. Again the re ‐ jected appeal, precipitating motion now us resolution.

There a threshold question whether this court has ju risdiction review denial Sanchez’s motion reopen, given we would not have jurisdiction over underly ing request relief—cancellation removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). But we do have jurisdiction review questions law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). And in Mata v. Lynch , S. Ct. (2015), Supreme Court said “whenever [of Appeals] denies alien’s statutory motion reopen a case, courts have jurisdiction review decision.” And First Cir cuit, citing Mata has asserted jurisdiction over a motion case where petitioner, as present case, seeking form discretionary relief (a waiver under U.S.C. § 1182(h)) from not otherwise reviewable by court. Mazariegos Lynch F.3d (1st Cir. 2015). government has not responded Sanchez’s invocation Mata present case.

Assuming as we do we have jurisdiction Board’s denial Sanchez’s reopen, shall *4 ‐ 1673 exercise it, and Sanchez’s removal stayed pending our review of Board’s denial of his reconsidera ‐ tion. The Board noted Sanchez attached to his mo ‐ tion new evidence support his ineffective assistance ‐ of ‐ counsel claim, including affidavits from Sanchez and others, information about his U.S. citizen children, records per ‐ taining to his criminal history. The concluded, but without explanation, none evidence “would have likely altered outcome this case with regard to hardship accrue to his children.” Although is not required “to write an exegesis on every conten ‐ tion” alien fighting removal, blanket rejection all alien’s evidence precludes meaningful deci ‐ sion. Ji Cheng Ni v. Holder F.3d 625–30 (7th Cir. 2013). government also to respond to Sanchez’s ar ‐

gument he his family will suffer irreparable harm if he is removed Mexico his to proceeding is resolved. See Nken Holder U.S. (2009). He is his family’s primary breadwinner, sup ‐ porting wife their young children. ex presses concern won’t be able support family, are expected remain Ohio, whatever wage can make Mexico, youngest son will be unable continue therapy needs if Sanchez’s wife forced go back work support family. He further argues should not priority De partment Homeland Security because decision re move not based on criminal convictions.

Given irreparable harm Sanchez’s could inflict minor U.S. citizen children, have decided *5 stay until rule decision Appeals denying reopen.

So ordered.