well your argument next in law all the sessions one six two eight two eight the morning honors may please the court many already but attorney for miss all the petitioner missed last testimony alone could have been sufficient to establish her eligibility for adjustment of status and the i j a statements to the contrary prior to hearing testimony evidence to a predisposition to deny the matter at the outset it's important to just give a brief brief overview of the adjustment of status law that is to say that an individual can apply for their permanent residency from within the united states so long as they establish that they were admitted by an immigration official from the united states in any manner that admission can occur through a valid visa through the presentation of a lawful permanent resident card or even through fraud it does not matter as long as they can establish that they were admitted by a u s government official they can apply for their permanent residency from in the united states the board in matter of a gui in one nine hundred eighty and then later reaffirmed in matter of q q lanton in two thousand and ten stated that an individual's testimony alone can be sufficient to establish that they were admitted that they don't need to present documentation of that emission they don't need to present a passport they don't need to present a stamp that if their testimony if believed can be legally sufficient a chair you see you have a situation where there had been  deception prior to this absolutely and that had to be and that could be taken into account by the by the judge the judge didn't didn't actually do that but then there was further deception that later on convince the i j a doctor not to be able to do it and this can be i mean the other side takes issue with your fact that she'd prejudge the case because she allowed the case to go on she you know it it's not automatic that you just take the word of the of the petitioner and and and and accept it you know it's got to be weighed against the other evidence has got to be weighed against the the various factors that  indicate there were prior issues of credibility and that's it seems to me that she was just saying this is what this is the hurdle that you face it's her and that doesn't mean that i've decided the case is just saying saying that this is not not not easy maybe telling her that she's got to get corroboration yes or n and we actually don't maintain the position that it should be automatic and that her testimony is very relevant and whether it's found credible but the key issues that in this instance the barn was the barn doors already left open and if you read what the judge said mean by prejudging so if you read what the judge said on page ninety seven of the record prior to taking testimony the immigration judge made no mention of miss law's credibility or her concerns about the specific case the judge refers to a general matter and she says where there is no proof that somebody she's speaking in general terms where there is no proof that somebody entered at an airport in the normal case people say well i entered that way but i don't have anybody who's willing to come forward and testify to it there's no passport or anything like that and therefore i have concerns that you're going to be able to meet your burden so again the judge is not just talking about miss last case she's just talking about the general case and actually prior to saying that's the judge's i've never seen anyone try to do this except that's not what the law says the law says that she can do it without a passport she can do it on her testimony alone the judge is not alerting missed law to her concerns about her credibility the judge is saying essentially misstating the law that you're not going to be able to meet your bur because it's just you testifying and you don't have a passport and that's what we're talking this is you going to be it's going to be a really tough uphill battle yes so if i express any concern and tell you this is going to be an uphill battle because that's not what the law says the law says that a person's testimony in the morning and had recently just prior to hearing this to miss los hearing for the immigrations was the board in two thousand and ten and reaffirmed its position that actually a person's testimony alone is or can be sufficient and what the judge is telling her is that no it can't be i don't see how you're going to be able to meet your burden just as i've never seen anyone do this all the other people do take some other avenue or try to seek  signal that the judge believes that the testimony alone may not be credible because the judge made no mention of her credibility in the judge wasn't talking about her you were the judge did to her concerns the judge's concerns about this law's credibility but again that's the the judge's decision stands or falls based on are you also saying then you would not be making this argument had the judge or even an executive agency determination we don't require specific some specific specifications and specific you asking us to what i'm asking you to do is look at the board's decision and what the board said was they dismissed this language as alerting her to her the judge's concerns about her credibility but that's just a complete  misrepresentation of what the immigration judge was saying there is no indication whatsoever that she's talking about this lawless specific case or credibility and so while generally there is not a requirement of using magic words as your hon states but in this case it's a complete misrepresentation of what in fact the judge was saying and the judge was talking about the legal requirements in general about what other people do not about his last case so it's clear it's not just using magic words but the judge actually just completely getting the law wrong and that's why we believe the judge was predisposed to deny this case and everything that came after that was simply a justification for what the judge already reached a determination based on the law about the fact that the judge even offered she was leaning toward the government because well that's precisely the point your honor is because it's likely that i was pretty precisely the point your honor that she she was indicating that she didn't believe as a matter of law that miss law was going to be able to meet her burden through her own testimony and she had already provided an earlier a different a different date in february two thousand and one dated interview and she had to be it in order to qualify be admitted prior to that by november of two thousand and eight so she already provided a date that did not work and now she was testifying to an earlier date so there were all sorts of problems with her and it's reasonable under those not produced i'm not surprised why because you know it it might have contradicted her earlier state because the mother in law apparently filled out the application that had the a later date on it but it doesn't seem to be the date the i j a was was had preached pre judge this case as judge can point out she was trying to see whether there was a way through the mess i'd use my time's up if i could just briefly respond to that it's not entirely clear that the immigration judge was aware of that discrepancy which later came out during the testimony and again that's why we go that's why we go back to our original point that the immigration judge clearly believed that there was no way an individual and as a general matter was going to be able to jonathan robbins here on behalf of the united states attorney general good morning your honour's petitioner is only raising one claim in this case he's not challenging the actual underlying adverse credibility determination he's or she is only raising a claim that the immigration judge was biased and that claim of biased is based on the preconference hearing that occurred on march twenty third two thousand and fifteen it's located at pages ninety two to ninety eight of the record and the essential the claim here i think when you take a look at the preconference hearing and the context in which the hearing took place will see that not only is this not a case of bias this is a case of an immigration judge doing what we want immigration judges to do the primary concern that the immigration judge had when you look at this is that she wanted to determine whether petitioner had considered the waivers under either specifically the six a one a waiver the six a one a waiver is a preferable for a waiver because it allows the alien to file the waiver from inside the united states and waves unlawful presence and petitioners counsel correctly informed her that petitioner would have been eligible for that waiver because of the prior fraud and the immigration judge was trying to figure out whether there was some way to waive that fraud so she could get that form of relief because i think the immigration judge was concerned that they may have been sort of deciding to pursue this case which on its face already had some consistency issues with regard regarding the manner date of entry and wanted to make sure the petitioner wasn't boxing herself into a to a difficult credibility case where she might have otherwise had a form of ultimately they didn't pursue those different other types of waivers but that's not indicative of bias and in fact when you look at this court case law on bias bias has to be extra judicial in nature it can't be it has to be some sort of personal bias or shed some sort of doubt on the credibility of proceedings the propriety of proceedings or be hostile in some way the immigration judge was trying to figure out if there was a way through the mess as your honor alluded to before that's not bias and that's certainly not prejudgment of the case back here i mean that what struck me is that the immigration judge says seven which i think you said it's just that you know not prejudging the case in any way but almost everybody who came but it's the beginning of it is i'm not prejudging the case in exactly or i mean it's not bias for the immigration judge to state the obvious i mean don't forget there was a pre hearing statement filed so everybody knew what was going to be the issues that were going to be litigated there was already evidence in the record where petitioner had submitted documents where she claimed to be inspector enter have entered without inspection admission which is contradictory her new claim which is why at the beginning of the preconference hearing the judge confirmed you're going to be proceeding with this new story she said yes and you're the only one that's going to be testifying in other words pointing out that they weren't planning on corroborating a claim and when of course when you present testimony of somebody who's already been not credible of course that's going to be a difficult burden it's not biased to state the obvious and the immigration judge was you know repeatedly the courts of appeals have sort of nicked the agency or nicked immigration judges for not giving the applicants an opportunity to address concerns about credibility here the immigration judges  maybe maybe not directly but implicitly bring it to bring it to their attention and looking for ways out for the for the petitioner that is not bias so unless the court has any other questions the government would rest on the br conference hearing what your judge cited where your honor cited on page ninety seven and the following statement is was there any discussion of ms law's credibility so there's no way that this could have been construed especially as a credibility or