the burden then shifted to the agency to disprove the evidence for the showing which negates the reasonableness of the inference the agency did not do so and in fact it abused its discretion in two ways first it arbitrarily gave conclusive weight to the lea also some legitimate employment that legitimately employed some workers however specifically regarding the case of mr against iran now this list establishes nothing because there is no reason to believe that the list is complete and accurate thing right she did it meant that she committed some fraud however there was not enough attention given to this individual application oh you can think of fact and they can consider the fact here's the person who does this all the time and she regulations included their personal contact information so the agency could contact them and verify whether or not their their word was true the agency did not do that or the coworkers on the list the co three years after the alleged employment time with no evidence in the record to reflect that anything other than this but seen as memory serves to recall these dozens of coworkers this all points to the fact that the evidence is inconclusive also it should be said that the review procedure page twenty two of the record calls specific attention to other employers that had engaged in fraud and says that in essence says that the agency recognized that memory baseless cannot be complete and that individual review must be taken to add or subtract specific names from each list and fact the agency made no attempt to contact mr sina and this goes against in fact their very own policy as petitioners argued today that some of her cases there were fraud it was close to ninety five percent of her cases were fraudulent affidavits that she submitted and this mr rodriguez serrano could have been on that list he wasn't in it was produced as part of a plea agreement if presumably it was used as part of her plea agreement if it was good enough for a u s district court judge to use in taking part of it and in figuring a sentence presumably it's good enough for this process as well well there are two different purposes yes or seems that the circumstances under which that mistress maine three years after the fact with no record just sitting down and writing  answer and this goes to the argument that the government put forth in its brief with regard to exhaustion what mr rodriguez toronto was asking this court to do was overturned the ellie's decision he's not asking for for what presumably under the ventura case normally if an agency decision would be he had that opportunity to submit once he's given a notice of intent to deny it the notice of intent to deny is very clear it says if you want to challenge this you've got thirty days submit something  every single argument that he's made today could have been made to the l a u and that's the government's point with regard to the exhaustion argument every single argument that he's made today could have and in fact should have been made to the agency because if he had if you want to say there's a problem with this list where's miss prissy you know i want to try and find her i want to track her down i want to ask her hey what about me do you remember me he could have done that he had every opportunity to do that he didn't do that and that's that goes to the government's point with regard to exhaustion he had the opportunity to exhaust his administrative remedies to challenge it your question your honor about is the government comfortable the procedures were in place for mr gregory to serrano's to challenge that affidavit there's no suggestion that he wasn't served the notice of intent to deny he had every opportunity to respond to it he chose not to and so all of your your your honour's concerns about how this was was  was he given the option to ask her specifically do you remember me it's not like he didn't have that opportunity he had every opportunity he chose not to take advantage of it instead to vi pass the administrative review and come to this court and that goes to the perfect case where had mr rodriguez serrano gone to the l a u and made all of the arguments that he's now making before this court all of his concerns could have been addressed that's the perfect situation for the credential exhaustion document raised he had the opportunity alleges in his briefs that he didn't have the opportunity to respond to the evidence he had that opportunity he chose not to take advantage of it with regard again to the actual evidence that was before the l a u he says he works inescapable in this case ninety five percent ninety five percent of this seems affidavits were fake the government didn't stop there and say ok that's enough they went back they said were any of your this issue did have a full hearing and the reason i say that is he recently added his evidence initially to the l a year and in their recent mission he was essentially saying you've used your discretion because all of this proves that i deserved that i qualify for these benefits ensure that the service could resolve these disputes easily there was no care given to whether or not mr rodriguez in fact was should have been included on the list so the argument that the decision was other contractors who were in a similar situation the applicants were given a chance to have their names presented to the known purveyor for with the hopes that they would refresh your memory in essence memory