court already determined in a previous decision issued in january it is clear from the existing record that mr fuller identifies as bisexual and that given the severe violence and abuse directed at members  decision to deny that motion was up it was brought to this court for review this court determined that it was still entitled to review the b i use denial for questions of law and constitutional questions there's a broader array of some clearly state itself well yes that there is that standard now application of that standard but how the board decides whether extraordinary circumstances exist is confided to its discretion but that predicate question of has it accurately and meaningful see that's where you get into more scrutiny did consider you didn't ignore them they didn't ignore them your honor but these actually don't know what they did with them they set we've looked at them but apparently they didn't read them because they didn't understand that they were related to credibility that's precisely right your honor it's although they invoke the letters or reference them we cannot have any confidence that the be ira read and understood those letters complete and you have no reason to believe that the person didn't understand the question however if the person responsible if you ask did you have dinner yesterday and the person responds yes i have breakfast that's a longer answer and one that  question but it's one that demonstrates the person answering the question fundamentally misunderstood or didn't really answer in response to what and that's what the b i i did hear it purported to engage with mr fuller's motion and evidence but didn't  there are absolutely no standards that underlie the as mr decent house put it there sitting at the table the board could read every third line of his letters or the board could throw his letters in the wastebasket or the board could put not seen in the letters all over the place and say he's not doing this or he's not doing that that there would be there are just no standards and board until he pile that second most and so there's only a test that he sent them to the board so the fact that they're not there is subject to one of two explanations that we can't resolve either he didn't mail them so you nelson again or he didn't mail them in the board just misplaced them and they didn't log min properly so there's no record of the board of receipt that we don't know which of those things happened but the only thing before the court now is does happen in orchard rio's what happened you know and these are witnesses at great personal cost to themselves given the atmosphere in jamaica who are corroborating his one clear about what these letters related to in the record i can't believe you were there they're playing there about the specific incidents that were in the record and it was also incident that he was asked by ten years of staying when the incident happened and nothing in those letters rectifies that i was shot in college or maybe it was ten years and then possibly and i just shot you know for all i know what happened twice  saying we've read the letters and we don't think we don't we can't figure out what they relate to or we've read the letters and we don't think these are reliable witnesses or we've read the letters and we don't think being shot at is a big the letters this is not saying anything but we've seen the letters don't change our mind and we don't know why we don't know any of the reasons why in the social security area we constantly send things back for more same you're right it's different at that level but it's also the same in that we don't have any authority to second guess the board's cement about whether country conditions are changed enough to allow somebody consider these three letters does not go into detail about the three letter said and why they didn't think they were editing thing with the already so maybe said something like that's it you're saying under these when you're didn't give enough explanation for not finding it these letters i didn't find him credible and we did not find it is letters of support would materially alter the findings period that's  sanchez be sessions which you cite in our brief there as this court noted the book as it explained the b i's decision that the board did but without explanation that none of the evidence would have likely altered the outcome of this case with regard to certain factual findings that is strikingly similar to the language the b i used here and in sanchez this court said that that sort of blanket rejection was not likely to pass muster on judicial review