there are a lot of issues in this case and so this morning what i want to do is limit my discussion to the issues raised in the twenty each in the letters to our soldiers more fully articulate that due process problems that existed at the hearing section one of the real i d act it states that no court now reversed a determination in made by a trier of fact with respect to the availability of corroborating evidence as described in three new sections that were added by the real i d act and so those three sections this is really referring to a determination made under one of those three new sections of law and in this case the immigration judge clearly wasn't making a determination under i don't any of those sections and in fact section one or one each three of the real id act makes clear that none of those three new sections are west active specifically perspective they apply to applications filed on or after the date of an accident of the real i d act but there is a challenge that we made to that decision the court would have jurisdiction to at least consider that but we don't know if the board up held the denial of voluntary departure just speaking for myself right like well at the very beginning of the hearing we attempted to articulate the basis of his claim and the immigration judge cut kelso off a mediately and said this is your only claim your claim is that you want to go back to russia because you don't want to serve in the military when in fact on his i five eighty nine and in the declarations that he needed he made clear that he was also afraid on account of his religion and on account of his membership in a social group in his family that had been persecuted in russia on account of their religion and that those claims were never able to develop and that's why we cited to several cases that are twenty eight  buttress the argument that the immigration judge rendered these proceedings fundamentally unfair she cut off testimony from mr zorra toucans mother when she attempt to describe the persecution that she suffered and that the children suffered she flat out refused to allow this result you can see grandmother to testify at our she prejudge the value of that testimony she wouldn't allow us to present the expert testimony who could elaborated on the risk that our client faced her failure to listen to military but also on account of his religion and so we believe that by essentially prejudging the merits of the case mr that in this case and so if the court does not find it on the record before it mr zealots who can has and has met his burden at a minimum it has to remain and so that he has a fundamentally fair hearing in addition to prejudging her incorrect conclusion if you didn't know the name of his church which he did and he repeatedly stated what the name of the church was and then said well you can if i believed you you don't have a claim so you can move on or we can drag this out those were court she left a message on the machine at the church and she said this is immigration judge an a hole i was trying to verify that some individuals in my courtroom are members of your church please call me back she gave her name in the name of the hundred sure and that would make sense if she knew exactly what the testimony would have been but in this case she didn't even allow the petitioner an opportunity to articulate what all of  claims were and so we have no way of knowing how well the record going to unfold and if that testimony has been presented and so she it's certainly a violation of due process to just make a determination that none of this evidence will be relevant without knowing what it is and with respect to the expert she relied on his declaration that there were few to allow him to testify to elaborate upon certain things that concluded in his declaration and so in this particular case we think that it's quite clear that had mr avila to can think given the opportunity to develop the record he would have plausibly been able or potentially have been able to impact the outcome in the case so she wasn't required to definitively prove that evidence would have met his burden but that it potentially had the effect and clearly  chance to remain in the united states he was in fact a lawful permanent resident but he committed several crimes including a violent crime which caused the immigration judge to deny his the s not interesting and i believe he did and in fact he was asked a couple of times a couple of questions to clarify that in addition and the conviction that form the basis record when asked about if he said that he slaps her in the in the mouth and that's all he did meantime with pictures depicting bruises on her arms and there was also documents to record indicating that he also kids her and in fact a restraining order was taken out against him which i believe was then placed for a year against her against him contacting her he was very invasive about that incident and he stated that feel violated the terms of his plea by not attending anger management classes which were mandated by the court because he forgot to go  the judge wasn't fair in regard to testimony about a month since he was assuming that was the discretionary decision that was the alternative about what happened in the soviet union has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he's got a string of crimes that occurred a year before the immigration hearing i mean this is not an individual who should be granted asylum records show that he had  given adequate opportunity and in fact with the immigration judge said i want to hear everything i have wide latitude and we're going to hear i'm going to hear from both sides about this about these crimes and in criminal charge at page five sixty five of the records recital of conviction said if he willfully ignored the court's order to attend anger management classes the judge wants to force actually call it interesting when he claims to be a devout member of this pacifist religion but has again a string of crimes including a violent crime but me that is it may he didn't really know very much about pentecostalism and we when he was asked about it on the record he said i don't know much about it he couldn't really describe he was really just worship in the united states very clearly he couldn't provide the name of  pastor he couldn't provide the location of his church the immigration judge did call the church because there was no verification provided and that was definitely was it she was trying to was allowed to present whatever evidence was necessary and on the issue of evidence what was interesting is that he didn't provide any evidence from the pastor of the actual church that he himself attended there was evidence from some pastor in germany who was related to his mo church but there is clear testimony that he wasn't a member of his mother's church he attended another church and that has that which allegedly he was there once a week and there was nothing from that church to say that he was actually a protection and so the government can go on and on about how horrible it thinks our client is but it really has no bearing on whether he was provided a fundamentally fair hearing in an opportunity took that to develop the record and certainly could have determination under the application for asylum and we feel like the due process problems just don't record and so how can an immigration judge opportune times to grant a discretionary form of relief to the really quite taking call into question whether this was an exercise of discretion and whether it was really an abuse of discretion and i'm not saying that in it was a fair hearing that she went to the ag discretion to consider these things but the problem is we don't know that she was really fairly considering all these things because she did so many things in this case that render the i think the proceedings unfair and in particular again off the record conversations and with regard to prejudice she wouldn't allow the expert to testify in this court recently held in the best minds are that where an immigration judge prejudge is the value of an expert test and an expert's testimony that can corroborate a clane then that is that due process violation and we think in this case if the expert had been given an opportunity to testify he would have been able to establish that our client grandmother could have been in her declaration and she stated that she was aware that hurts her grandson is the petitioner and his mother and other family members were harmed because of her and we have her ready to the harm the future harm and some of the harm that the family experience in the past would be on account of their familial relationship with the grandmother and this is similar to the  the government argues well we can't even go there because of these credibility issues but the immigration judge she didn't really make a credibility determination with regard to whether he was raised pentecostal came from a pentecostal family that was known as a pentecostal family and that wasn't really called into question because we never got to present it she found the petitioner not credible based soley on testimony from his mother but we believe the testimony consistent and he did know the name of his pastor he knew the street address of his church i think a lot of people don't know the exact address of their church it doesn't mean he's not an apostle and the judge didn't rely on his lack of knowledge of the religion in her decision to deny the application and so i don't know if i've fully addressed those questions which is actually one more point the board to me even addressed the