actions or chance amount to denying the petitioner her due process rights through her counsel she had requested in advance not just on the did the hearing but in writing prior to the hearing for a short continu allow a key witness the psychologist dr our own to testify on her behalf regarding the mental abuse she suffered by her united states citizen husband what's the prejudice even assuming that was error given for on the statement that she said everything she had to say in the report well it is very common for a doctor or a medical expert or any expert  can flush out the details of the witnesses knowledge regarding areas of expertise whatever consultation they have with the client in this case the petitioner expert and not a lawyer she wrote down in medical terms her findings and it was for the benefit of the petitioner impishness counsel to ask additional questions to establish maybe those areas where the psychologist did not explain in full detail the source of the petitioner's of feelings of depression or abuse or to show more with more detail how her united states citizen husband had caused the depression that she was currently suffering well we're taking all of that is true don't we circle back to the question about the bona fide marriage and this witness wouldn't have been able to testify on that point with me that's correct no she would not have as she would only go on the petitioners word now regarding the judge's findings about the fraudulent marriage remember he first signed sworn under penalty of perjury a statement attesting to the bona fides of the marriage in the record we find another statement in which he  denounces his previous statements also swore under penalty of perjury as he was not a witness in the proceedings the judge could not place the same weight on these two documents as she would in normal proceeding it was an reasonable for the judge to find that it was implausible that mr also called him mr willis would threaten the petitioner of deporting her and at the same time it meant to perjury however she failed to take into account she was a drug user one who did not seek counseling which lead ultimately to the failure of the marriage and the abuse that the petitioner suffered how much its horn statement that it was a false marriage to be attributed secondly we don't know how reasonable he might be if he is under the influence of drugs therefore the that very point that very example of the joint bank account actually just proves that i choose theory namely if it really was a fraudulent marriage wouldn't mr willis after signing a war declaration under penalty of perjury sever all ties with the petitioner obviously they did not because they had a real marriage they had a joint bank account for an additional two years roemer you asked about what prejudice there is for not having dr on testify and there clearly is no one doctor owns affidavit appears in the record and there's nothing that she could have really added to her testimony would have added to help petitioner meet her burden which is to make a credible claim that she qualifies for cancellation of removal and there's really no nothing that she could have said in a petition of points and nothing that she could have testified to actually testified life that would help to meet that burd for the government is requesting that the court review the underlining cancellation of removal claim and its merits however that's not the issue before the court the issue for the court is whether there was an abus discretion but very quickly turning to the merits such as good moral character judge clearly found that the respondent testify consistently both in court and with her written declaration and her arrest record