council offering post them i mean that they're not relevant to the question we have here can agencies after the fact submit the reasons without showing that the circumstances thirty report that made them believe they must be more strenuous in their efforts and therefore they were more strenuous we think that's on the billing because we if you look at whether or not the to do he's done nothing in the past in the either he hasn't backed me interview nine states and frankly it's not uncommon for an iranian to hold a naturist that's different from where he may actually be residing at the time they were saying all things considered they're looking at declaration your brief i read it in many times because the first thing that we've done is we how does this declaration get here and you're arguing that it's not good reasoning well i wasn't as opposed to most section should have been you can't consider this  trying to argue and you think there's no occasion all that i can for i mean maybe you've got it there's no case law that i can foresee that's doing what you're trying a lot and what you're trying to do all will give you the reasons now you're right that first rejection was kind of the declaration by the agency's decision making which were for to the classified information which was submitted in camera and the court review that declaration from the decision maker here in any event the records at the time the computer records explain the same things that the beer a declaration talks about they talk about the a t f investigation they talked about the address and they talked about the criminal conviction and it they concluded in those computer records that he presents a threat to national security now the very declaration explains more connects the dots but it's very clear from the record that that is what transportation national security so these are the contemporaneous where kurds they may not connect all the dots they're not required to but there's no need to really make any for a decision that looks like a very good cooperation that does connect every d because of the national security reasons there are typically here now in this case of course there is this this is happened stance and we actually could disclose all of the reasons and this case we do have the contempora information in the mind of cases is going to involve protected information and even going through the process of scrubbing that deciding what can be released as grazie risk of releasing protected information that you don't need to read them for the agency to come up with the same decision that they already have we cited the cases that we're aware of on this but of course jeffrey is our strongest case jeffrey i do want to distinguish between the classified information and jeffrey  kind of decision doesn't is this is the this is what the court is thinking out when it talks about a post hoc declaration because this is something that is based on that explains the decision at the am at the time and  not arguing in his brief as your honor pointed out that the court can't review this declaration he's arguing that this decision was made on the basis of his immigration status and that is simply incorrect mocking at the document the time though the computer records the ladder and the declaration are all made clear that this is a decision that was made on the basis of his album security status i see that i'm out of time and i double negative is clarified by the declaration which says exactly what the decision maker found that she did find that he did present a risk to pose a threat to aviation and national security so that ambiguity has been has been