official action generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time the action was taken.” Anderson, 483 U.S. at 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034. That is, “[t]he relevant question ... is the objective question whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the conduct at issue] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [officer who engaged in the conduct at issue] possessed.” Id. at 636, 107 S.Ct. 3034; see also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (setting forth two-step analysis for resolving government officials’ qualified immunity claims); but see Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 227, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Parties dispute the level of generality at
holding that an appellate court has discretion to consider an issue not argued by the parties holding that twostep saucier analysis should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement but that a court may consider the steps as the court deems appropriate in its discretion holding that the court has discretion not to consider an issue abandoned on appeal holding that the court may only consider the discrete acts that occurred within the appropriate time period holding that unless remand from the bia is qualified or limited to a specific purpose an ij may consider any and all matters he  deems appropriate in the exercise of his administrative discretion or which are brought to his attention in compliance with the appropriate regulations