evidence of whatever it is that they asked for now i'm a lost because i feel like the government counsel my parallel planets whenever i try to discuss these issues they bring up new matters that were never discussed  it's two separate analysis and i think perhaps that's why the government was a little confused too when they kept incorporating all these decisions from a different c s e it was a general one twenty nine was dismissed from the judicial be applied to or on one twenty nine could be applied to one party no your honor it couldn't even be considered it with respect to one forty well but you know it's the same party some of the same issues were determined back why wouldn't they be binding and when forty well that's an interesting question if you have it you if you have two if you have two judges that look at the same matter and both and you know that's a final adjudication on those issues between those parties as to his qualifications for that one but but we fought those issues here also i guess i'm not  sure both for the l one visa e b one visa the managerial qualifications there in both we we kept our argument for one and we let it go for the other case because investment had a franchise agreement with burger king corporation so even if you look at the decision of the one twenty nine even those even those reasons were i think in that burger king corporation and shoe investment can you cite any precedent suggesting that an article three court should limit its review to the first decision of an agency rather than the final decision of an agency no but these look at you know we don't look at a lower court ruling over a higher court ruling took this seems to be a little upside down but by the same token in this but then you know how can we review then they want deference i don't know how do you give matter the agency wouldn't require us to pay two separate feeds the final two separate applications before two separate judges to look at the matter it doesn't seem fair that you would import one judges or one reviewing officers determination on a completely different matter it just seems that undermined anything about or you know the review  the confusion that i think is in this case this case started with an i won forty which was denied they filed a lie one twenty nine which is for a temporary and that's fine  to the administrative appeals office they instead decided well they'll try for a temporary visa and then they file that i want twenty nine that was denied locally as well mistake and i didn't want to take a chance in the court of appeals by and so that's why i wanted to defend what decision we read the record was that i went twenty nine was dismissed in the action before the district court so it's not here i'm i wrong on that you're right on that but i didn't realize that until after i saw their reply brief to this court so i'm perfectly willing to say that there i went twenty nine is not before this court anymore is just the i one forty i'm only trying to explain to the court one thing which is why if i one read any nine was correctly decided by the appeal reviewing the decision of the director of the california service center rather than a decision issued by the a o and if the district court erred by failing to consider the agency's final determination do we need to re executive capacity standard didn't change as between the service center and the and if we are right on have the judgement should be affirmed utterly irrespective of everything into the definition of manager or executive capacity those standards are tightly defined by statute by regulation case law it isn't just somebody who supervises a few people if you look at the statute they're talking about people who run complex for going to say she is not always huge ones the complex serious organizations these are the same people who are placed in the statute right next to outstanding researchers and professors and anyone else with extraordinary ability like world class athletes we're not talking about people who and this is not to denigrate the individual point of here but we're not talking about people who sort of routinely run a small shop so and things like that and that's another one i'm going to come to that a second if i have you're not probably going to ok so i think i would at least i think both of those factors will take against the concept that he was going to be an executive a workable and or a manager over a restaurant on the one hand while his were in the restaurant business on the other that seems in congress and also this whole thing about attending trade shows that's not managerial or executive that's an operational thing trying to secure a business that's what right i just don't see how in a certain way that your client can ever win here but there's this procedural morass in terms that that if yet there seems to be some strategy to get them to do it again but he does have that uphill battle in terms of that he lists things that he's attending trade shows and on manager martin on managing serial responsibilities  that's what he's listed and i don't see how that if if the procedures are followed correctly how you can prevail right there is some very encouraging but i'd like to go back to the collateral stoppel and resident card issue the reason i don't think it should apply in the ministry of