at that hearing specifically the immigration judge so allowed himself to be prejudiced by the testimony of this trial martha stewart who testified first the fourth accused in chief that he wasn't able to provide the normal due and he he would have bolstered her credibility in that respect in fact the immigration judge's decision complains that she doesn't have any corroboration but he himself prevented her from presenting  instructive in this case as to why and i think you were interested in this in the previous case before me the value of expert testimony are you making that kind of bias argue with them or quite sure i understand your argument there was no evidence later of prejudice then this probably wouldn't have been a problem normally i believe in all court proceedings immigration as well as civil and criminal and individual the individual who bears the burden of proof gets to put on their case  chief and as my colleague basically concedes in her brief the asylum officers testimony or any expert testimony which is supposed to be used for impeachment comes after the testimony is introduce that well you know in this case it was actually a bit of both she was factually testifying about what mr causey said at the interview but she also offered in the form of an expert opinion what a jehovah's witness would and would know and the light upon that heavily in his decision so because he actually says that he begins on i think it's page forty two of his decision the testimony was not the judge made very clear that after one hour he was not going to entertain testimony he was not well he was not going to entertain testimony he instructed petitioners counsel not to take too long and only let her  by having this person test the asylum officer testify first if you look at her testimony the trial attorney only asked her foundational questions so to to lay the groundwork for her  the judge asked her twice as many questions as the trial attorney and although there were some questions on cross exam about the same number as the trial attorney it was clear that the judge was relying very heavily on this asylum officer if you look then at the testimony by the some of it relates to her religion but in the judge's decision he doesn't acknowledge any of that she relies on what the asylum officer says he refers to one question that he asked of the petitioner concerning the word temple didn't pursue her but she told him i don't really understand you i don't understand this word he didn't pursue it instead he considered this more and so there are many asylum officers that have professional training in certain areas just asylum officer testified that she had interviewed well over twenty jehovah's witnesses and it is it was absolutely reasonable for the immigration in to her church has worked on evidence from the minister there where the priests or other people just to say that she was a member and that she attended when she heard she had ample western version of the greek and hebrew bible translated into her language she when she was responding these religious questions was she  time her attorney says and there is mr the record one thirty five one three six and one twenty all of those points to show that the judge was rushing her and told she told her attorney don't take too don't have the records specifically the immigration judge saying i'm only giving you one hour but this frequently happens back to the idea of an asylum officer being an expert i actually have an advantage here i am a former asylum officer and i know that i interviewed hundreds for example of sikhs but i don't call myself an expert in the sikh religion and you can interview twenty jehovah's witnesses but we still don't know from