s that mr sanchez is alleging and the independent basis for relief and that his third child circumstances percent so would you agree that we comfortable that it has jurisdiction to consider petitioner's argument as they've been presented by petitioner i'm specifically on the an adequate explanation argument which respondent has reframed and his briefing as an argument that the court ignored evidence that's not petitioners argument here if the court is comfortable that it has jurisdiction to review that argument as framed that way the null the greater mot a question does not have to be resolved however i will say that this court could decide a portion of the modoc piece specific to this case without getting to the broader question of whether mana in of itself gives courts of appeals jurisdiction over all motions to reopen the court could say that at minimum model allows a court of appeal to review any process or procedural challenges to a motion to reopen that are distinct from the underlying relief that is being sought by the initial application that's exactly what's happening here petitioners arguments both the the inadequate acts were nation and the improper legal standard both go to the process of the motion to reopen and not the underlying substance of the relief side so there's that avenue as well as the avenue that has been put out in the briefing in terms of iglesias and other cases that suggest that an adequate explanation argument petitioner raises is itself a question of was going to be an adequate explanation argument the parties seem to agree is required to issue an opinion that allows a reviewing court to understand that it's heard and thought and not merely reacted to the motion to reopen that simply didn't happen here the b i a devoted fo attached to the motion and that list was not complete as respond concedes the third sentence simply said upon consideration the b a was not persuaded that the evidence met the standard it was applying to petitioners claim a standard analysis or discussion of how the how the petitioner failed to meet the standard to be i was applying no discussion of how or if it weighed the evidence that it listed the parties and this court are left to speculate as to what a a found wanting and petitioners presentation and that is insufficient under this court's precedent this court has said that the p a is required to issue opinions with rational explanations and adequate analysis of the record there was petitioners new evidence did not meet the standard it was applying now responded to spend about four pages in his briefing trying to outline what the b a a could have been thinking who in which it could have looked at this evidence but that's not the role for responde or the role of this court is the responsibility to explain its decisions and provide its russia now and it did not do that here the motion to reopen is an important safeguard to ensure that the immigration proceedings are are being administered and a lawful manner this court cannot ensure that that right is being is being fairly administered if there is no explanation the  decision for which this court to review put another way as a panel this court said in granting a motion to stay petitioners and deportation this case it's a blanket rejection of all of the aliens evidence precludes meaningful review of the decision without meaningful review there's would no way to know if the b a is administering the motion to reopen in a manner in the manner in which it is supposed to be administered and for that reason this court should remanded to  applying to petitioners claim and just on its face though that those words suggest a standard much higher the possibility likelihood suggest more than fifty percent which is more than mere possibility properly standard matters because there's evidence to be wait this is not a circumstance where the petitioner had no evidence like some of the cases that respondent has cited to support the notion that would likely have altered is an acceptable articulation of the standard here there is evidence and the b i a responsibility is to look at that evidence weigh it compared to the correct standard and the term and whether it meets the petitioner has met his burden and that's what we ask the court to do here is to remand case back to the ira with instructions to apply a possibility sandor and to explain its decision so that all the parties can understand whether the b s a has has satisfied its responsibilities then on top of that as cited and respondents answered in brief this court has articulated a prejudiced standard and many ways and it's worth pointing out in their own motion to reopen the would have likely altered standard was errors in the new independent basis for relief suffice to establish this court's jurisdiction here and that we need not go further and consider whether any denial of the most is re reviewable well again your honor with regards to the the legal standard the would have likely altered standard the board set of the correct standard in the parents article and again this court and many decisions whether it's  standard which the board used arguably it was the one advocated by petitioner himself in his motion to rio moving on this court's cases require only the counsel's errors actually had the potential for affecting the outcome of the proceedings and that's now gassaway versus holder that's a two thousand and twelve case  and and that one quoted raffi versus metate he which isn't two thousand and case so look at the standard in our circuit is one of possibility rather than probability at any rate that's certainly the way i view it will it if this court were to find that the wrong standard was used as we articulated in our brief under a boat has versus lynch even if the standard was incorrect if the result would have been and will be the same on every matter remain with you futile which then begs to the earth goes to the second point raised by petitioner which is was all the evidence considered was there a fulsome decision and with respect there was your honor the only thing submitted in this change the result in a case the two oldest children first certificates and i believe the one that the only evidence not addressed by the board in this case was a one sentence letter from the children's school stating only which doesn't it's not hardship that your daughter well i'm mr hogan i promise to go back and reread ok if you will promise that you will go back and and first there is no categorical to the type of really are seeking here and that was the case in life hence when there's a categorical bar there's no way that the be a needs to do related to evidence and so in that case this court could look at the evidence and say there's no reason to send it that's not the case here look at is an applicable the second reason is there's never been any way of the evidence and this case and that is the job in the first and sense this court should not feel when it's the first body to look at the evidence weigh it as to the proper standard and make a determination that's how the the structure is set up at the b i should do that in the first sentence and starts so futility in terms they're simply don't