by doing that by remaining the case today are you to take a look at this missing evidence and sort that out stuff sort of the questions about that it would moot the whole dispute about cancellation and the judicial review provisions in the liberty interest and the questions are very difficult and time consuming for everybody to deal with but let me just we might get them later so yeah that's always possible i did want to point out that during the amnesty period which was an the circuit waited to see what happened in the amnesty application process and that's really what we think this court should do here today  you know there are many there are several main issues in this case and i'm not sure which are the most important for the court as we start with stories all right let's focus on that i think that's just our strongest case because it's clear that the applicant time least admitted they requested additional information but for some reason it was misplaced at lincoln for over nine months and not forwarded to the l a u for its decision making until several days after the decision had been made i mean i don't think contractors their level of education isn't much higher than the applicants for the farmers it says the time frame in which you work and it's there's the pay as i said signed and notarized i think perhaps useful in this lost that one as well but that shows further information about the dates that he worked which is often an issue of question by the l a you are there are yes and it also i think of note is that there's a photograph of the further explanation on exactly the kinds of things that the l a u a typically asked for further information on so we think that's an appropriate question this court doesn't have to deal with whether that's appropriate for consideration  observed and there is there is no dispute that the document was received by the government and wasn't surveil you there is a distinction i would draw out to question the document is not in the administrative record that was before the l u it was and therefore the only used decision in that respect is not an abuse of discretion it didn't have the document it couldn't have considered that i can however then you have to consider where there is there is a process defect and therefore due process issue and from there you get to the issue of whether there is in fact prejudice the government's position on this and there's there's a number of different permutations to all of this but the fundamental aspect of the government's position with respect to that to the document did everything he was supposed to do and now you're arguing them and that the failure to consider it is nevertheless harmless error because we can examine the substance of the of the document why isn't that an l a u issue in the first instance are you asking why review of the second document was dealing with an hours the second document is not part of the record before this court threw what you're arguing and it turns out but the point here is that the l a u in deciding the way it did and the ins and failing to bring the document forward did not violate due process because there was no prejudice in them not doing so because the document itself would not have changed the result and as to the first reason this is the man hours the second reason which also applies to the second document is the second document doesn't meet the criteria for for looking at the evidence in the first place that's not to argue that he hasn't provided the process that is due because he's not going to win it and it's not the way that we ordinarily calculated due process violation we don't usually jump to the end and say well it doesn't matter he's not going to win r two ten point three d that it that such an affidavit by a coworker or supervisor must contain it has to say what his relationship is to the to the alien it has to be asked to give his address it has to give the locations of that was done it has to have the photograph the photograph has to be signed all of those things are not present in this document now theoretically if mr rasco had presented this document in a timely manner back in february of nineteen eighty nine to the l you the first time of the second time of the third time that the original process of this will be asked for that they might have gone back to him and said ok can you fill in some of these blanks or even track down mr scotto and ask him to complete the document correctly but as a practical matter by the time it got to the appellate level and if this document had reached the all you in this form the l a you would not have used discretion in saying this form doesn't meet our standards you lose it some certainty for some based on their rationale in analyzing the other documents that were on the record first they look first the site manager if i think they would be behaving inconsistently if they did that you're asking us to make that to make that judgment without having the benefit of their views you're correct that you know that in this case based on the total absence of any value in the document and the total lack of qualification of documenting the first place i believe it's fair because the relief that's granted from the through the the two ten process is only a temporary residence authorisation he would be authorized temporary residence in the united states but yet could  that then would provide him with a mechanism for or appealing the order following a proper providing a process by the l a u the odd thing about the regulations of mr mclaughlin i had a discussion about this but as i read the regulations there's no such thing at least at the time this decision that allowed for emotional reopen it as i recall the regulations in effect in  that's why i think there's prejudice here because if you took this evidence he proves just reasonable inference i don't care if the l a u gets it wrong the second time it's still wrong and this court on review ultimately here ten years later can straighten that out x date to why did it's more than sufficient even if you figure if you only work four days a week during that timeframe as a matter of just reasonable inference to get into the ninety days thank you thank you counsel