the issue here i believe to be one of due process and fundamental fairness to mr rose coming to this hearing this regardless appeared at the hearing at eleven o'clock it was a master hearing scheduled for further down the client says listen my case is so important and i'm such an important person in my concern just so important that i want my change her immediately now let's take immediately to me would immediately means if i told you to do something immediately i think i'd want you to jump now so as to the south and the ideas as well now i've got a lot of people ahead of you and he says no i want my case heard that he would be forced to go forward by himself present documentation not knowing any of the rules of evidence not the lawyer says at that point apparently according to this colloquy if that's the case i can't go forward and there's nothing from him saying complex based upon the factor of the judge talking to him and he doesn't know really what to say to the judge that doesn't sound inferior that that's that's the most aggressive italy and i've ever seen a case but i have never had a person come to my court or seen one  immigration court when the person says me listen judge i don't care how many people are ahead of me i go first because i'm important and i insist that you hear my case immediately i've never heard that have you know would you allow somebody to do that in your courtroom i mean the issue is because he did it didn't mean the judge had to follow his request the judge could have easily have said ok i got it for two weeks from now you've got two weeks to come back with an attorney show up at that time have your hearing if you don't have an attorney present with you you will have to go forward on your own at that point and then he would be in for you would be standing in front of her saying you know what this judge did he force this guy to get a new attorney and come back in two weeks and how can any attorney possibly be ready to put on a case in t coming to england him going to kuwait and going to the embassy it's not of the next and he says that everything that was easy to tell you the truth it sounds highly complex because the question is whether this person really left because he was complex to figure out the truth of what went on how they got maybe that's why he needed a lawyer and needed a continuance exactly and and the government's position was you weren't persecuted for all these years you had a thriving business going everything going for you  advise someone in this petitioners circumstance to make clear that there's a knowing intelligent waiver of counsel on our cases require that i believe your honor that that the cases do require that they do that i believe i don't believe there was anything in the record indicating that your honor that alone reason to send them under the circumstances in this case it's the government's position and that is not alone enough in this case  in front of twelve hundred other cases he was given a reasonable date in which to appear and it was set for the thirtieth of september and he i j reset it for march eighteenth of that of the following year and he said no i i have to go forward now my family my children are are in jeopardy and the immigration judge allowed him to proceed he got  here he says ok you go you want to hearing i'm going to call you at one o'clock this afternoon and you must bring certified translated records if they're not in english your witnesses must be all present your documents  be in order and you've got two hours to put that all together that's basically what he said is that well yes your honor the immigration judge gave him a choice he said you can come back on in  suppose had he been advised earlier on of his test of his rights i don't believe that he had then your honor that he was very simple you'd never he had never appeared because generally people make a first appearance and at that point they're told they can have an attorney and they're absolutely clear from this record that the reason his lawyer withdrew is he was saying i can't present this case one o'clock this afternoon because i would be committing malpractise  he isn't saying i've got to be in another court room or i've got a lunch date or i need to watch a sporting event on television he's saying i wouldn't be prepared to go forward i don't recall him saying specifically that that it would be because he would be committing malpractise i don't know if it was clear from what i know i can't do that i'm not prepared to do that that's what that's basically what he said ok and is it a clear in and there are several inferences i think with all due respect that could be made for your honor he may have had something else on his schedule i don't know it's not clear from the record in counsel didn't object to say it's because i can't go forward this is too short of question what rule of law would you have us write that the one needs to be advised of the statutory right of counsel except when blank his testimony and his evidence and the immigration judge took the time to examine that witness and  discussion that it was difficult to read the record or his responses were not didn't appear to be answering the questions and at some point in the record they had indicated that petitioner had some familiarity with the english language and what was happening was he wasn't waiting until the interpreter had finished asking the questions in his native language before he started answering them so some of his questions were not respons to the questions being asked either by the immigration judge or by counsel and the immigration judge you know took time to say you need to wait and listen to my questions and answer the question and went back and over the question opportunities and he said now i need to be heard now i need to be in front of these twelve hundred other cases and that's what he got in for him to now claim that that was somehow prejudicial is incorrect and is his only king  i think we understand your position changes are difficult cases to argue we appreciate you coming in and arguing and you've done a very good job in the face of very difficult facts but you come back thank you your honor you want to respond the tourney but the judge is really punitive here i think the judge took the position that i'm going to be punitive on the span and make him go forward and argue his case and present evidence and do everything that he needs to do whether he's ready or not ready i