record the problem that exists in the sound of all case is that the record has been compromised by the actions of the immigration judge grants seen from day one literally the second question on the merits the judge interposed her own objection saying the question was somewhat leading the problem was it wasn't a leading question at all what happened september one thousand nine hundred eighty two it limits the question but that's not leading and then later what happened with the guerrilla you know the objection from the judge again you were leading who made any mention of the good will us although in his first question or first answer mr sonner ball had mentioned the revolutionary forces and again the judge is going you're leading you're leading you're leading and you're undermining his credibility and again that is not a leading question and it continues on like this and then finally the immigration judge goes to the government's lawyer mr gallagher you should start objecting and mr gallagher starch to answer gets cut off with the judge with a very small comment yeah i'm good what is your response to the government artfully explained the attorney on the appeal below did raise issues of the state of the evidence and the due process claim it is an expansion o yeas decision they added decision saying based upon their record and again we have a record here that is compromised so if the board is that really with the exhaustion requirement i think if you put in an appeal saying they're wrong right and you can tell tell that by looking at the record so if you can say if you just put in  the notice of appeal saying they're wrong please reverse no you didn't raise it and this case thought that i read the exhaustion of administrative grammys has more to do with if you bring up some type of new relief again the arguments raised below went to the status of the record and if that isn't in the record are you trying to bring up issues that weren't in the again you know that photograph to give evidence yes you know the father was in fact shocked and mr gallagher says well i'm not so sure that's relevant and the judge interposed her own objection no you have to have the photographer here to authenticate the photograph in fact turn the photograph over i don't even want to see it what we have here is just a  and so if there are problems with the record that can be corrected and developed well  protected ground mr sound of all testified that his father in law had told them they were trying to recruit you into the guerrillas and he going way back to blondes here nonis which i can't believe was now twenty years old neutrality i don't want to be on either side i can be an art and then we  but again we come back to what you tried to show that he was not able to show that i really don't know i was retaining this record which we have here so i am approaching it from the same place you are so i didn't try the case so i really can't say i like to reserve the remainder of my time good morning may it please the court my name is thankful vander starr and i represent the attorney general of the united states you're on the government asked this court to deny the petition for a view affirming the decision of the board of immigration  an extension a voluntary departure for the remainder of the family i would like to pick up on the due process issue that your honour's were discussing with my opposing counsel in fact the petitioner ha that he raised it in his brief to the board a review of that brief shows that the only issue raised with respect to the evidence in the record was the issue regarding the photographs there was no mention of the immigration judges questioning or objecting to questions or any other of the immigration judges conduct during the hearing if the board is not expected to find all of the issues that a petition i should have ra supposed to control the conduct of the hearing the course of the hearing and in fact i would submit that what the immigration judge was doing was trying to ensure that petitioner's counsel did not court what evidence if any he would have presented but for the immigration judges alleged bad conduct during the hearing so the petitioners due process claim first of all this court last jurisdiction to review it but even if this court were to review it it must fail on the merits regarding the issue of asylum we have an adverse credibility finding here the male and female petition male and female petition gave differing testimony regarding the date of the event the precipitating event for their concern and they're just itching to leave guatemala the alleged shooting of the wife's father we also have some conflicting testimony by the female respondent regarding her she said it was too dark to see anything then she said she saw that they were wearing uniforms and when she was questioned about that she said oh no i was talking about another incident so we do have an adverse credibility finding it is the government's position that the record does not compel a different conclusion from that however if this court were to determine that that adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence then we move on to the issue of whether or not the petitioners suffered past persecution on the ground or whether they have a well founded fear of future persecution and first i'd like to state that the petitioner has waived any argument with respect to those two issues by failing to raise that those issues in his brief to this court petitioner only challenges the adverse credibility finding and then only raises this due process claim therefore this court should not review those because the wife and children's asylum applications were derivatives of the male respondent and even if we take as true that the guerrillas says something to the father to the father about wanting to really the guerrillas were interested in obtaining supplies from the father in law finally there was nothing directed directly at the male and female petitioner here it was the father in law who was shot allegedly the home that was burglarized but there was no harm came to either of the male or female petitioner in this case so the government would ask the court to affirm the denial of asylum i'd like to turn to the issue of voluntary departure with my remaining time the mail petition or ask the court to review the denial of voluntary departure and is the government's position that this court lacks jurisdiction under the statute to review that finding issue of reinstating voluntary departure and staying voluntary departure as this court is well aware is a very hot issue before this court the most recent case one of the most recent cases being desta versus lioness in which the court held that a timely motion for a stay of removal will count as a timely motion for a stay of the period of voluntary departure however we have a unique situation here and that is that the petitioners filed their motion for a stay of removal after the expiration of the voluntary departure period they filed their petition purview and stay motion on the monday following the thirtieth day which under the court's rules they're entitled to do that because the court is closed on sunday so they can't father petition for review on sunday however there is no such bar to voluntarily departing by the deadline of sunday and justin made it very clear that the court in jest and made it very clear that what the court was not doing was it was not granting additional time it was only preserving the remaining days that were left on the voluntary departure period here there was no date not a reinstatement is that exactly what not not adding more time and here this would be adding more time the voluntary departure period ended on sunday they did not move until monday so the government w court affirmed the denial of mr sanders also application for voluntary departure or excuse me not review that because there is no jurisdiction to renew that and to deny the remaining petitioners motion for an extension of i will admit to being a little bit surprised about the argument about sunday on monday but i do believe in the regulations i believe it's safe to your car one point one because there was a time for taking an action  merida saying we can't create a record that doesn't exist and there's almost a presumption of prejudice if you can't get it out and we submit that exactly what the immigration judge was