official posture of this case makes it somewhat complicated this is a petition for review of a motion to reconsider which this court used for an abuse of discretion mr meyer sought withholding of removal under eight u s c section twelve thirty one presentation here really doesn't address the kinds of things that we would need to think about when we're deciding whether there's an abuse of discretion in denying a motion to reconsider its not just a complete of the underlying decision in and i do understand that argument and i don't think mr meyer merely republished the same arguments again in his motion to reconsider he did i think challenge every well i mean i suppose to you of realizing it's there and just coming to a conclusion that you believe was not the right conclusion generally i think they overlooked all of the facts and mr meyer presented sufficient evidence that he was immigration judge which was in the immigration judge in a cooler and they say sorry we think he's right and there's the responded didn't carry his evidentiary burden to demonstrate persecution it's cetera et should why should we infer that they weren't paying attention to the evidence well i think based on our legal arguments in this case is demonstrating that he does qualify for withholding  looks like there's an abuse of discretion including that he's not eligible the problem here is that your motion for reconsideration was entirely conclusory all you did was say look back at the records the ira we proved entitlement to withholding removal there's nothing else in there that's the whole argument it's contained then to make barely two pages you know that's just not enough you need to identify evidence that the board moving forward now we believe mr meyer all five of that argument has been waived and i understand what you've got here is a motion for reconsideration and if you can't show that the board erred in denying reconsideration then you the court our position clearly is as your honor has stated that the motion for reconsideration that all the court is doing is looking at whether the poor abused its discretion very deferential standard abused its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration and as your honor pointed out the motion for reconsideration itself is facially insufficient and as far as the government is concerned that's as far as we need to go and it's don't presume to take the court's time unless there's a questions that the court would like us to discuss you know i mean there was  could have done both and you know it's an interesting system that we have here in immigration because you file separate petitions for review from everything from the underlying decision from motions to reconsider motions to reopen the whole gamut  because we don't have something like rule fifty nine in the immigration yuri's it and it's interesting to note that the decision in the court's recent decision on particular social group that you know if we were to get to the merits which we believe we should not but what if we wore the domingo's the lido decision there are three separate petitions for review in that case as you say there was a direct b f r there was a motion to reconsider there was a motion to reopen all of that was consolidated before the court and so there's no reason that if mr m i felt there was some advantage to seeking reconsideration that he could have done that and also  petition for review and unfortunate for him he did not do that and so at this point there's really nothing for the court to do other than to look at the motion for reconsideration to determine that the board did not abuse its discretion in de