communal cook for the petitioners in this case mr and mrs castro preliminary i'd like to point out that this couple has been fighting their deportation a removal case for ten years their case of originally started stand here today the two u s citizen children are fifteen and twelve it's been pending before this court for over three years our primary argument is that this case represents a clear do do you clear violations of due process under the fifth amendment of the u s prevented from reasonably presenting his or her case the alien of course must also show prejudice that is that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation the b i a erred in this regard in that they cited their own case of assad which is not even on point for the proposition that they there very much so that prejudice was likely or that the outcome would have likely been differently cut right to the chase in your view what part of their case on hardship were they present prevented from presenting well i just completely ignored their doctor's testimony the record is he failed to  sure that the record was clear through out that the doctor practiced this testimony there in the transcript is riddled with indiscernible and translated indiscernible and translated that so how can this court even know exactly what the doctor said and then i just completely  cherry pick those aspects of dr produced as testimony which were most helpful to his preconceived plan to deny the case but the testimony comes in and as you know from these cases the transcripts are often difficult and the willing only we've got a tape recorder in the room which may or may not mean that the people in the room didn't hear it it just means that when the transcribers transcribing from the tape recording what i understand that but i think believe it's i jay's responsibility to make sure that he or she is creating a record which is reviewable and we don't know if the exactly if the i j a took into account the doctor s aspects of the doctor's testimony has he just wholesale ignored them as did the b i a they also completely failed to mention the psychologist report by dr schuller is there certain evidence not evidence that you're saying was improperly  evidence that in your view should have been allowed to get the i j a kept out i'd have to say no it's in the record it was just ignored but i think that what evidence  second the doctor refused to testify that her asthma is high grade that she's constantly being seen for observation that she is at risk of recurring bronchitis can even go into respiratory distress or arrest and she can die from might be able to receive treatment in big cities but there's also testimony from the doctor that she would be more likely to suffer less serious as mrs nissen symptoms if she was in a rural area and the government  somewhat disingenuously in my opinion argues in their brief that she can live in a rural area but close enough to a big city that she can travel when she needs to whereas the doctor specifically testify that she needs to be close to emergency high quality expensive and given that her parents immigrated to the us at the tender age of fourteen and sixteen it's extremely unlikely that they would be able to obtain employment in mexico city or any major city considering that they have no family no training but all the time jobs par condoms there certainly are your honor ones but whether or not they'd allow you to pay for the highly expensive medical treatment that this child according to the doctor the testified of in treating her since she was nine years old and he clearly said that she that the there in certain areas and hit the doctor treated i believe that she could probably get medical treatment in guadalajara but again the question is the cost and again if you are going to live in a rural area to avoid the symptoms but you're going to have to try only there was information on the record on both sides there the government presented at the final hearing after case been pending for five years documentation regarding medical care in mexico that the government of the judge allowed that in over objection by care because it was late filed they had not had an opportunity to view it was filed at the hearing because the judge relied upon that in his decision but failed to even mention any of the numerous reports regarding the the lack of availability of met medical care especially in remote rural areas that was  states that removal to mexico would place the castro children at great psychological emotional and physical risk both of these what physical risk emotional and physical risk so that's a conclusion what is the physical risk to which is to health but th pardon me there isn't treatment right where in the record is there any indication that the parents castro my kids will have to live in a rural area why can't what kind of trade or profession do have and why is it going to be limited to a room well the doctor testified that her symptoms would likely be less severe in a rural area as mexico city has one of the highest asthma rates in the world for example and they think she would likely have better controlled symptoms if she lived in a rural area so the government in their brief argues she can live in a rural area and then just travel to the big city when she needs to but the rural area that they're from is four hours by bus from the nearest medical care so it's not clear you know they're going to try to while they're trying to relocate after twelve or twenty years in the u s they're going to try to find just exactly the right location where they can get their daughter medical care and get jobs ok now you know under fifty seconds and you want to save to minister why don't we hear from the government and then we will give you two minutes thank you so much  ignored any evidence they were not prevented from presenting any evidence that is the evidence that titian has presented twelve or fifteen hundred pages of documents including articles that say there i free health care for mexican citizens their own pediatrician said that liliana had childhood asthma childhood asthma is in eighty to ninety percent of cases and certain things about the immigration judge may well be a denial due process that is to be i cannot cure that is to say if there's an exclusion of the evidence not me i simply cannot cure that it's a harder question for me whether or not the b i a can cure bias by the i j because there's so much deference given to the by truly r j except the two problems with that is they have not identified any added that they were prevented from presenting and that's the say how this bias affected the decision and they do not charge this against the board and they still have not identified any evidence which was ignored all they identify is evidence they didn't like the way it was w determined it because the immigration judge and the board did not rely on the country reports they relied on the twelve hundred pages of documentation themselves submitted including the reports that say i think the program is progress twelve hundred pages i don't have a specific site now but that's the issue they relied on evidence in the record they did not prevent any testimony evidence witnesses corroboration nothing was kept out and the argument that the translation was inadequate it's raised for the first time hear it in oral arguments and we want to get to exhaustion on that one but the point is nothing was prevented from presenting therefore there is no prejudice panel has no other response if i may they raise melinda's case makes clear that the b i e cannot launder but due process violations by the immigration judge merely by years that these people have been fighting the case the fact that i just want to say one more thing doctor that she still did you know he stated that he believes even though childhood as well right now that it will be chronic so a contract what the