she was denied below due process terri's plain these proceedings witnesses were called you shouldn't have been witnessed as you should have testified were prevented from doing so and throughout the proceedings the immigration judge made statements and finding his biased against my client because she was a domestic violence victim didn't exist even if you assume that he heard all that evidence properly and that wasn't the issue before the court the reason to believe finding that it is an issue before this court is still infected with d calling the witness the detective in this case over the objections the strong objections by both the government and ms lopez and when he did that and he introduced and heard the testimony provided by the detective he was relying on unreliable  why there were two detectives that were testifying in that case about information provided to them from a confidential informant who wasn't produced in the in the hearing and this court upheld that they said that was fine there were no evidentiary issues the evidence  continually interrupted the the direct examination of the witness in a in a very similar case i believe it's real as well and just this court said that it was improper for a judge to interrupt the director at the level of one third of the direct testimony in that case was interrupted by the judge in this case if you look at the direct examination interruptions were over half and he displayed bias very early on in the proceeding which record at page thirty three hundred twenty three to three hundred twenty five she makes an offer of proof through her counsel in which counsel says that the bio money was found in her purse because mr gomez mendoza owed her money that she had told her something i think  sensitive enough to claims of skulls of yours and suggested that the government or at least the ionise not pursue this matter and that was apparently one of the one of the reasons that that the district council didn't want to call the detective she said and in her motion to the immigration judge that she that it appeared that detective bryant had misconstrued the policy of the district attorney's office about when they were going to prosecute people whether these three by one by and as i believe was explained during that month examination of detective brian i think of page three fourteen three fifteen there is really just a misunderstanding as to what the policy was that cause of the properly discounted or improperly found her incredible with regard to the violence assertions that lack of credibility about that part of her life spilled over and therefore that's why that kind of prejudgment is why he didn't believe her claimed had drugged and raped her and so it goes but more importantly there was an objection to any of these any of these alleged abuse of questions and it wasn't even raised in the recusal motion was filed six months later and it was raised in a brief before the board cards with ms lopez's picture on it with a different name on them they also while they're at the house fourteen thirty these eleven the phone rang a number of times and the caller id the device and phone indicated that one of the calls are from another drug dealer very brief thank you and i was just like to sum up that in fact in this case there is no substantial evidence that supports the reason to believe finding the the only evidence in support of that again is detective bryant's unreliable