right we'll now your argument in you know versus bar row is entitled to a new asylum hearing where after the removal order became final the united states government disclosed directly to cameron's government mr innes pledge of allegiance to the s c and see an independence movement that cameron's government has officially banned and long subjected to persecution and even torture in other words our government put an explosive document directly in the hands of a well documented persecutor branding mr you know as a rebel and a traitor in the eyes of cameron's government now we're not asking this court at this time to directly order petitioner eligible for asylum mr ino merely seeks a new asylum hearing so that he can get in to immigrate  arguing a classic basis for reconsideration as this court said in its lieu decision which is where the board overlooks a critical aspect of the case and has reconsideration motion put as c in c cards disclosure front and center he mentioned it sixteen different times in the motion for reconsideration and the board still disregard it repeated its prior conclusory analysis that although it reviewed all documents none breach the government's confidentiality regulation case and so that's how this case comes to this court and nobody nobody never singled out these documents and determined whether or not this posed a substantial risk error and that this court should review and reject it but you're right your honor that it didn't specifically single it out and that alone was a serious legal error i think is this court recognized in its power disobeyed decision that when presented with substantial arguments the board has an obligation to engage in a considered thorough examination of those arguments given that should it be sent back to the board with that instruction then it has to specifically consider this further than the pending motion as opposed to concluding that the board should send it to the i g i think not your honor and the case i would point the court to is its poor disobeyed decision to i think is really arose in the exact same posture so they're just as here so that it's four hundred and twenty at rd seventy so there justice here petitioners move to reopen a final removal proceeding based upon a new asylum claim grounded  evidence and there just as in this case the b s a brushed aside the claim in what this court called overly perfunctory analysis but i think the critical point was this court didn't stop there it went on to hold that because the  was so clear cut on the record that had to be i engaged in the proper inquiry there was only one possible conclusion which was that a new asylum hearing was necessary before the i j a and i think that makes a lot of case standard is not unduly burdensome what this court said in that same case in point is so that is the showing necessary is merely a reasonable possibility a reasonable chance of success and ultimately obtaining asylum relief and picture appears and where he professes allegiance including a pledge to fight need and die for this organization if necessary that was sent directly to cameron's government the persecutor that mr you know fears so that piece of the puzzle i think is satisfied in the nd is that is there reason to think that the government of cameron would persecute those it perceives as affiliated with this independence movement and again i think there's overwhelming record evidence with instructions for further proceedings consistent with this court's opinion what will happen as a practical matter if the court does that is the board will in short order reopen the case and send it to the immigration judge for the asylum hearing that we think is good morning made me please the court this court should remain on this case to the board for it to decide in the st instance whether the submission of petitioners political membership card to the embassy of cameron was a breach of confidentiality in violation of the confidentiality regulations and agency may voluntarily seek to remain the case and court should ordinarily permit the agency to voluntarily remand in the absence of countervailing reasons but if you personally feel for from  mission and this was the remain and be requested on our motion in the room and we request in our breach in our brief was similar to what your honor was was indicating which was remained for the board for it to specifically decide whether submission doesn't preclude the agency from renewing the request in its brief or briefing room and as the agency did in this case remained is the ordinary remedy and agency occasions remember why would be confined to the question of breach confidentiality why wouldn't it also be involved why would you also want them to look at whether or not there is an independent risk confidentiality on a gentleman will be discussed in the agency decision denying reopen or denying reconsideration the government's not requesting a limited role and specifically to that issue we were just requesting remained so that the agency could address that as a minimal file as a minimal and on this record the agency say no new hearing is necessary because they say no hearing is necessary they could potentially there would be several different findings that the agency would need to reach  agency would need to specifically fond that there was actually disclosure i think we noted in the brief that this is what d h just a submission to the board indicated but the board didn't specifically discuss that and then they didn't specifically discuss whether that disclosure was a breach or a violation and then if found the regulation itself doesn't indicate a remedy but this court and lynn indicated that the remedy would then be the opportunity to present your case and show how the violation once found with the ever other evidence in the record or whatever evidence new evidence the petitioner would like to submit whether that gave rise in this instance on the motion to permit fisher case and while the board in this instance did state that the prime if they should case it up and shown it did so after initially finding no violations of the agency has yet to rule in the st instance whether prime the facia case has been shown assuming a case it was noted that the case presented itself to the court backed up following an initial remained to the agency where it was not apparent that the board had paid attention to specific exhibits in the record that might be so similar here were although the board has had no opportunity to look at the card there's no indication that the board has discussed the card or made any findings with respect to the significance of the disclosure of the card and that's fairly obvious that there ought to be hearing as to whether or not there is a new risk an independent risk of of that warrants or saw as and matter of administrative law ordinarily this would go back for the board for because on the initial bashan actually the initial motion that the petitioner presented to the board was not arguing that the card was the violation the initial motion to the board was actually arguing that disclosure of the i m b i a decisions lead to an end for instead he had applied for asylum so that was the issue with the initial motion the issue with the current came up with what da just responded to that motion at attached the card and indicate that that that usually are in are intertwined with factual issues concerning adverse credibility that was the case in this court's decision and lynn in the th circuit wanted time to do with what's what does that have to do with this here i mean here we have no there's no dispute that the card was turned over to the cameroon embassy maybe innocently maybe not but the reality is that wasn't true when this whole process began the board had it was apprised of that request to reopen and said no what more do we need to t might be a credibility as to whether or not he was really a member of this group or something like that that's a role because we have told cameroon that he is a member by giving him by by handing handing the card back whether or not he is a member not we've told him we've told him that and so that's the risk it seems now that that he faces and that seems to be there's got to be he's got this is got to be heard on that basis for that particular issue we can't send back  of a vague they remand for further proceedings or they have to focus on the car and they have to form focus on the fact that the card informed cameroon with our complicity that he was a member of this of the  the group it's just the government's position that deciding that issue of the impact of the previous finding that he wasn't credible or the previous finding that the card was an authentic is best handled that kind of spat fact pacific question best still be an issue even if a violation of confidentiality is found i would expect we shall come i'm saying that our government told the cameron government that he was a member of the opposition which is banned in that country and subject to persecution that doesn't involve his credibility at all the government requests that this court remain on the case to the board thank you all right mr harmer you are just in for a few brief points first of all as as judge walker is absolutely correct that there is no credibility issue in this asylum claim mr claim is based on purely objective evidence a that is card was disclosed which the government does not dispute  conceded in sworn statements before the like you can see it was conceded but then counsel when i said what would happen when the st thing she said was the question was would be whether disclosure was made can cannot be contested at this point no your saying you get a new hearing and you get to just argue everything all again your honor so that be i a has a well established precedent that when a case is reopened for one purpose it's an all purpose reopening and any new arguments can be raised on or any further arguments can be raised on remained to the immigration judge and we actually agree on this point with the government the government has acknowledged in its brief that if this courtney man but it it's possible i would i would urge the court in its in its opinion to recognise that there was a breach of confidentiality here and that the prima facia case is satisfied that's that's what the court recognised in its point of so the decision and the order language that i just offered to judge walker i think would be our kind of ideal language but the court again not provide that level of detail i think in its poor disobeyed decision all this court case satisfied remain under to the board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the board will know what to do with it but if the court wants to help us out as much as possible our ideal ask would be to to raise issues about change countries or stances and so on i believe that what this court's decision and lynn said was that the petitioner would be allowed to present new evidence  establishing their claim for asylum so i don't believe that the lynds court decision would have been like a limited scope remey and also another point is that once the board did reopen the other decisions concerning the christianity claim would be rendered  on final in india and any event because they would no longer be a final decision and also just one point back on your point the government wasn't arguing that the disclosure didn't happen i think the government conceded before the board i think that there's a rd today we've got two other cases on submission so we'll reserve on those as well thanks very much have a good day