to focus on the element of stoppel we have other grounds in the appeal but but the the crux of this appeal is a stockpile and again normally the government is not held to that document to stop normally it's able to avoid it but in this this case that what we have is the filing of an action in early two thousand and five when it's not followed by a very quick motion for summary judgment no there's been no discovery done and what the motion for summary judgment is directed at is is in evidence it's very difficult to show stopper what you're left with is the bare record and the bare record is not a whole lot in this case and one of the reasons there's not a whole lot in this record is because really virtually nothing was done on this man's application and process for over seven years and i say virtually nothing because there were some routine things undertaken but what happened about two five years into this seven year over seven year process is that some point the file was lost but this wasn't told to the petitioner this wasn't told to the petitioner until almost six years after his original application was filed and during that time when not been nosing around to fight out what would have you know what was happening on his case he probably wouldn't be here today well it prejudice is him because ultimately as it turns out the government's basis for denying his petition is essentially that he adverse action based upon the petitioners lack of diligence that the government is the stop for making that argument when the government itself is guilty of a lack of diligence whether in the late or if there's other evidence of affirmative conduct affirmative misconduct excuse me and so that and that is really what a stop is about if the government is claiming that the petitioner has done something wrong and that's the reason for not giving him the relief  the government has to show that it is it's not their burden but if but the government has to overcome by showing that in fact it was the one that was not diligent that it affirmatively concealed facts that it lost the file and didn't tell him that it did it at the last minute when he brought a petition to compel some action to be taken on his process the government then immediately sends out a notice of intent to revoke and well they asked him to resubmit they get it started again it's really kind of started up again so little item to submit the information yes you need to miss the information is not sufficient well first of all who knows if the information that is resubmitted is his complaint and they were willing to treat that as an answer and in fact they discussed it in their ruling and they find his answer insufficient but i mean they they acknowledge receiving it and dealing with it well the complaint certainly have it in defense of the client this is over seven and a half years of waiting and it's over seven and a half years of not just sitting and waiting but actually checking on the process and research and doing everything they're saying resubmitting and it's only when he finally is frustrated and files a petition to just compel some action to be taken that he receives or quest for this so called additional information immediately and again it's not information that they had ever asked him for previously so you know that's the posture we're in now and what i was what i was referring to in terms of that those issues of what information does he have that he can still provide that can therefore it wasn't irrational or arbitrary and capricious for us to revoke these authorisation given the constellation of facts with which it was presented for example i don't think we're talking about the nomination we're have that problem but again if that was the issue then they could have told us that that's the sort of thing that c i s was asking please explain and they gave him thirty days in which to do so and as we know it just coming here to be a public charge or to circumvent the labor certification laws are not admissible and there is a concern that fraud in these types of cases i recall in the one nine hundred eighty s there was a big scandal involving five times in one week he was never there even though he told the interviewer that he was doing most of his activities at the temple we know from his tax returns that mr dean was working as a delivery worker and he put on his two thousand tax returns that was his principal occupation and he was even deducting his meals and his the temple was operated out of a residence but temple was a suspended corporation see any grounds for discovery in this case i mean discovery is not generally permitted in a p a and i realize this may not be strictly speaking be a standard based on the international case which said that the stand has been superseded in this type of case but  even so there has to be a strong showing of agency bad faith before discovery be allowed and that hasn't been out i don't even know there's been an allegation at this point there was in the district court but it seemed to me that it's been that wasn't really raised in the opening brief and so therefore it's been abandoned  years after the beginning please resubmit documents that's they didn't have any they didn't tell him of any specific concerns they just said resubmit documents they didn't even tell him at that point the fall of a loss they just s so they never suggested they had concerns of any kind they just said resubmit then in july two thousand and three which is over six years or close to seven years after the process began that's when they say the files been lost again still no indication of specific concerns or any additional information they need that didn't come in until the notice of intent to revoke went out and that's over seven years later and that's after his counsel have father petitioned to find out to try to get the process moving so it's the fact is that there was over a seven year period before anybody asked or suggested that there were any specific concerns with this information and i just want to set that straight so what you have here is you have an over seven years of which you've got genuine issues of material fact about affirmative misconduct and concealment and that should be enough to get the judgment reversed and back to square one