was in immigration court proceedings in april twenty eighth his due process rights were violated when he was not afforded full and fair trial before an immigration judge for two reasons first the immigration judge would did not  abandon his role as a neutral fact finder in seconds the immigration judge did not consider all relevant factors before rendering a decision moving to the first point the immigration judge bandit his role as a neutral fact finder which constituted an error of law and only in his entitle to be heard before a neutral immigration judge as required by statute and regulation are referring to the seventh circuit decision of rodriguez versus going salis states that i reversible error for an immigration judge to take over questioning so that in the end the judge rather than the attorney had to listen it whatever testimony the applicant has offered in that case the rule breaks  looks like page twenty thank you so it breaks it down into two steps whether the immigration judge limits some testimony or frequently interrupts that of the applicant secondly whether the immigration judge completely farse chunks of testimony that would support the applicant's claim once that stablished in order for it to be due process violation must be shown that the petitioner was right prejudiced by the immigration judge of action questioning assumed the role of the council what to whatever this was petitioners unable to present it in order for there to be a due process my only issue was was he an able to present any evidence not we were not unable to give trial judges quite a bit of latitude so can you point as i do you've cited the pieces but can you point us to examples i mean why is this over whatever uncertain or why in their area it's about the role of the immigration judge sure so in the administrative record anywhere between the pages of one forty six to one sixty five you can pull out a couple of examples for example page one fifty seven where accurate card and he specifically states hoops what else that you want to cover mr metcalf it seems as though the immigration judge returned petitioner attorneys that petitioners attorney for further questioning whoever that's only after the due process was thrown out the window at understanding i'm sorry i'm a little under the weather so the immigration judge took over complete lines of questioning to the point where the petitioner was prejudiced so there's a case again rodriguez garcia person is going sallust which states that if an immigration his wife children well that's true so there was evidence that was brought out during the trial however the immigration judge is questioning steered that trial and what happens in that case is that we are finder and not assume the role of the trial attorney as he did in this case to the point where the trial attorney did not even even just not write a judge can a judge can be a neutral  my best but my best example would be on page one fifty seven when he states i don't see any point in continuing on with respondents case we believe that's a due process violation counsel ski excuse me but it is you know questions and interruptions are not unknown in this court rant and we have been known to you know have had big familiar with the record and the arguments and to indicate in the middle of an argument that it's not going anywhere we've done that this morning to have we violated the due process court doing so and it's not why is this different it's different here your honor because it goes to the second part of that problem which states that  when all factors are not addressed and taken into consideration then the immigration judge is not doing his due diligence what did he miss you if you look i've never seen a case before in which the alien asserted that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the victim of his crime and that's what this was right so here the immigration judge  this is an extraordinarily weak ace on the merits and while i understand you don't want to talk about the facts you know evaluating the immigration judges management of the hearing i would think those kinds of things are wel understood just to continue on with the second prong so again he titian or here would lose all contact with his children he did testify during the trial that he is making amends with his children so i mean that when he wanted to stay in the united states obviously this is violent that would be what the immigration judge would have to consider and that's what did not happen in this case he did not take a look at all of the factors in a meaningful way i don't understand you one of the missing factors so what i what i just stated was that the emotional hardship wasn't considered in a meaningful way financial hardship look why didn't they testified i'm not sure  because they wanted to go back to mexico leave them alone because this thing has a natural inference and not a certainty but if you want to negate it have to present evidence true but you don't it could be other it could be other matters that kind of contributed to that as well ok well thank you miss  the question of the immigration judge as your honor pointed out the questions which two relevant issues regarding his statutory and discretionary eligibility for cancellation of removal on pages one fifty three to one fifty six of the administrat record the immigration judge asked questions about the hardship to his daughters as your own or point out were actually the victims of his crime pages one forty nine to one fifty three and one sixty one sixty one the immigration judge asked about his criminal convictions of which he had two pairs one sixty one and one sixty three they asked about his continuous physical presence in the united states and at that point he did admittedly say to sinners counsel after asking some of those to petitioners counsel which mr mr metcalf is counsel asked more questions about his current employment the merchandise of three separate times after that even though he asked some questions narrowing the focus of the testimony to the relevant issues  just a couple quick points your honor going back to the relationship between the father and the daughters so at that point the daughters were younger so the actual bad relationship was between father and mother so at that there would be no way for the children to actually come to testify had they even wanted to also the judge rendered a decision in this case before the trial attorney even cross examined there was no need for the trial trying to cross examine our argument here it's not what the decision was to how the decision was made the two process was violated because the judge although he has the right to question there's there is there should be some balance in this and it should be questioning in a non adverse you know manner which is not what happened in this case ok well thank you