what it's really doing is requesting that one the final administrative decision be vacated the case be reopened and then a new final administration final administrative decision the entered at a later date so it really do i wish that they pick up a telephone immediately and call the returning us to do is that something that should be fatal to their crisis that i don't agree with that well we recognize ineffective assistance of counsel but i don't think issue of use of discretion the actual denial of the motion to reissue since the denial doesn't refer to the affidavits of allah i think there are only three possibilities here number one and all three of them constitute abuse of discretion congress or this court intended for this process to be again a chance the government brings up and that's answering read that there's a presumption of regularity it affords government actions and that's true but it can be overcome by evidence to the contrary and what we've got here are to see their records so that they can then put in and the declaration attorney goes and says i went to the b r c a offices and i talk to the male supervisor and i talk to and i have all this information about how and i can petitioner it is on the petitioner but some point the petitioner has to i'm i just don't understand what the petition supposed to do other than say i didn't get it and the address that i had before the no proof you sent it so we take your presumption of regularity they rebut the presumption by saying they didn't get it what else do they have to show that the i think that's what they argued before the board at this point they're asking t presume in your quite correctly prism the regularity of government actually start with that presumption they rebut the presumption by saying we didn't get it the attorney says i didn't get it either but that's not enough here i just i didn't get it you got i have why not evidence why not that's what else could they do what happens could possibly be available to them you've already said there's nothing in your files well your honor this case in this case the fourth inserted the evidence and decided that he was he was not enough to to reassure the decision in other decisions boies had have really issued when they saw that something came back in this case it didn't come back but i know what their decision is i'm sorry i'm not i'm not arguing that i know what their decision is i'm trying to understand your argument r answering any of the questions it would be easier i think i think you could say truthfully that might be enough and the but here there's more but i don't understand the government's position if you're really saying that the petitioner can never win or that the board can act arbitrarily i think you lose this point i've tried to be as plain as i can about it if you're saying that the board can reject all evidence arbitrarily and capriciously and then say you win you lose you  you lose on the same facts i think that is an abuse of discretion if you're saying that the board the petitioners are put to a burden that they can't possibly you acknowledge they can't possibly meet or they can how can they meet that if there is no evidence that something came back to the able to get their attorney to get the records but there's nothing in the file to show that this was returned and there's nothing to follow show that it wasn't deliberate i'm not trying to argue with you i'm just trying to say i understand this position but i'm trying to clarify it that we're not we're not quibbling perhaps  but what you seem to be arguing is that petitioners can never win this kind of case and i don't think that's true that's correct i think they can win this type of case now and the board if there's evidence that things have been returned i think you can get something th time to do something about it how do you respond to that i respond that it's possible to make the argument that the sobbings iraq and alona received a notification immigration service and the reason he didn't have a g twenty and on file the immigration service is that he didn't come into the case and the hell the case was already up on appeal with the so he filed and you know our twenty seven with the way so as far as the immigration service was concerned him if he had gotten it i'm sure he would have taken steps in mediately the fact that they got it and sat on it and assumed that because they got it he also got in the mail to is unfortunate but given the fact that they're not attorneys and they don't know the process and how all this is put together i really don't think it should be held against them what do you how do you sort of the government's argument that look everybody could that people could come in every single case and put in  certified mail and there's no question and if they did apparently it's my understanding they used to do that and they stopped doing it assuming i assume they stopped doing it to save a buck well if they're going to save a buck they shouldn't punish the aliens because that's that's what they decide to do well i mean that's true and people can always lie and say you know you can and you can make an assumption that that people are liars and that therefore they shouldn't be taken at their word but i mean the cult if you do that then we wind up in a here no adverse credibility finding so the court and the agency were prepared to accept the hasan these were on the political situation in iran  things that happened years ago on the other side of the planet things that may happen in the future but they're not prepared to accept the haze obvious contentions about the contents of their mailbox a questioned his word on anything so i think we take these cases as as we as we find them i think that if there had been an adverse credibility finding on this say that say the aliens aren't represented and there's been an adverse credibility finding which is the agency is is downing the credibility then many of the government would have a stronger case or if the attorney