petitioners their right to a full and fair hearing before a neutral adjudicator when she substituted speculation and biased for credible undisputed evidence specifically the immigration judges biased against immigrants to receive public assistance in the referring to by his claim at this stage i didn't see where this claim was exhausted  aware of and had the opportunity to review a plane in order for it to be exhausted and here the i a e a did have the opportunity to review the immigration judges err the british nurse in their brief before the b a a expressly stated that quote issues on appeal relate to questions of law discretion and judgment it was clear to the v a that the petitioners were not just challenging the immigration judge as weighing of the hardships that is her discretionary decision but also the legal issues attend proper legal standard and then the rest of the brief which really argues the merits of the heart determination essentially the brief sets out the proper legal standard and then really argues its case to be ira which is or even the word unfair i'm not sure about that one your honor but the point is that before the board of immigration appeals were clearly raising legal claims of error that related to the standard that the immigration violations that occurred in this case because the due process violations occurred in the manner in which the immigration judge weighed the hardships and the standard she used to do so so under the case law that this court has decided  to only adopt portions of the immigration judges decisions but did not in this case it adopted the immigration judges decisions along with the due process violations which are plain from the face of the decision simply because the b i did not take the opportunity there the petitioners to do just pass in about two and a half pages the appropriate standard for assessing hardship and the factors that should be used within that standard and that they should be addressed  accordingly the legal airplane in addition to the due process claim was in fact exhausted before the b i turning to the substance of the due process violation it is clear from the numerous moralistic and snide comments made by the immigration judge during the proceedings that there was a due process violation and that prejudice resulted there from for example immigration judges biased caused her decision to be motivated by a was inappropriate to be made on the record and was certainly inappropriate as a basis for the immigration judge's decision here in addition the i disregarded uncontroverted credible evidence when she decided that the  and here it appears as we've argued in our claim of legal error that she only considered the economic detriment of removal to mexico in conjunction with feel harm to jonathan the petitioners ten year old u s citizen signed with respect to his health challenges to the neutrality of the immigration judge in the standard of law as presented in the opening brief or simply a request to review the judge's definition of hardship if dishes do not like the evidence considered by the judge does not acknowledge his alignment the evidence considered considering the judge was provided with the evidence that she received the majority of the evidence concerning her find it hard evidence in the record that was her speculation the evidence of their financial condition was presented by the petitioners the testimony regarding their receipt of public assistance was raised on direct examination by their counsel during the hearing the factors considered in assessing the hardship to the respondents children include poor economic conditions the board has stated that financial conditions will be considered and the rule of evidence in immigration court is whether it's material and relevant the fact that someone receives public assistance is not something that you can issue a category all categorical statement that this is bad or this is good it maybe it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and that's why these are discretionary determinations a person who receives financial assistance can be presumed to have financial difficulties somebody who receives public resources is not someone who is automatically determines to be bad or to be good it can following her statement that these respondents are pathetic she said the court feels very sorry for the children in this case they may have parents who want to do the best for them but they don't seem to have shown it that's essentially the the quotation from the immigration judge's decision throughout the hearings this tragic never interrupted the witnesses never does not deny them the opportunity to present witnesses the stretch conduct of the hearings fairly there was one request made by the petitioners throughout the entire naturalization over moving in over the place that they ever mentioned anything about the contents of the immigration judge's decision nor did they discuss the challenge to the standards set in montreal or any of the other board cases discussing cancellation of removal there was clearly no mention of a standard error and there's no challenge to a regulation or to a statute which is not a case involving statutory construction or an interpretation of section two forty eight sub paragraph b there's no challenge to a regulation determined that the board had addressed them both in this particular case there's only one application there's only one issue presented did the judge commit error in denying the application for cancellation of removal there's there was no other issue the board to address and in their decision they specifically state exactly what they were considering we agreed that the respondent failed to demonstrate eligibility for cancellation of removal there's no statement on the board or any implication the board has considered any other reason regulations state to require petitioners before the board to be specific about what they  the court has held the position before the board must state with sufficient specificity the grounds for appeal the court has recognized that the board requires that it be clear whether the alleged impropriety in the decision lies with the immigration judges interpretation of the facts or is application of legal standards where a question of law is presented supporting authority included and where the dispute is on the facts there should be a discussion of the particular details contested that was not done in this case there is no indication to the board that they should ever have considered the bias or lack of neutrality of the judge and no indication of a challenge to the standard of law employed in the event that this court has to determine that revolve affirm and automatically presumes that a newly raised issue can be addressed simply because counsel on appeal to this court has decided to phrase that in particular terms or conditions that would allow for a colorable due process claim would defeat the purpose of the statutory requirement for exhaustion and the regulation requiring specificity to the  board it would no longer be permitted to review a discretionary determination under the regulations allowing it to do so the regulations would become irrelevant there was no appeal to the board on the allegation of bias allegations that must be stated on appeal to preserve the the issue judge stockton in this case weighed the evidence presented to her and the weight afforded to those those factors using and using an allegation of due process as an attempt to avoid the statutory requirement for exhaustion a limitation on review of discretionary determinations as to exceptionally unusual heart chip would would make the entire process before the board irrelevant i would like to add parent that actually that's both the opening brief and the reply brief alleged due process violations without addressing whether a liberty interest is at stake within a removal proceeding there must be due process o a matter of right under any circumstances in you shall yang the supreme court also specially expressly reaffirmed j vs voids despite description of the attorney general's discretion with respect to other forms of relief administrative proceedings including cancellation of removal and even any effective assistance of counsel context creates no liberty interest to which the due process clause attaches every circuit including the ninth circuit has agreed without a liberty interest a due process claim must be rejected the discretionary grant of cancellation of removal in this crazy case presents just such an issue there's no liberty interest because a discretionary determination like cancellation of removal is not a matter of right and therefore the due process clause cannot be violated in conclusion the court likes to restriction to review discretionary determinations of cancellation of removal matters not how nasty an immigration judge gets how biased they appear if it's in a cancellation setting that would be the interpretation from your argument work and the due process clause requires a liberty interest so long as it's cancellation the gloves are off your honor first i would like to address from exhaustion points raised by counsel first there were two issues on appeal to the b i a one was the legal standard the brief was divided into two sections section arguing about the legal standard to be applied in hear that in their brief they laid out the standards of the i j a must consider each factor and cannot ignore fasters which must take into account it's clear that they are raising the legal standard to be applied to hardships terminations second they were indeed appealing to immigration judges biased instead of the evidence in the record to former opinion she sensually prejudge the case as did the judge in lopez who mans or instead of listening to the evidence and weighing her decision according to the evidence in the record instead of her own family is perhaps one of the weightiest interest at stake in the proceedings and i think that refers to the deportation here we're talking about cancellation of a deportation order absolutely that is the context in which court would like to thank miss wider for for a willingness to take this case on a pro bono basis we appreciate that very much i didn't see your name on the brief but i assume you were quite the manual for us in the late entran thank you thank you very much the case just argued will be submitted for decision and we will hear argument in united states is it rashard or richard r i c h richard