full and fair hearing and by the fact that the immigration at needed the statements made by her that violated notions of fundamental fairness and were undermined in their reliability and probative value by the fact that they were me ask you on that point was there an offer of proof made of what the sister would have said there was a declaration it's a detail declaration i believe it's four or five pages long as i was reviewing its and i was in front of the i a domain as before and he didn't say i'm not going to consider it or excluded something action that's correct however it was it directly contradicted what he found being that the sisters got collaboration clearly stated that ms ra did not know that the woman who was in the car didn't have legal permission to enter the united states i think if the immigration judge had in fact considered it at least needed to address that fact in his decision that he considered it and discounted it in some way that it was not probative of anything but me i'm not aware of any rule that requires you to comment on every piece of evidence entry those those officers are under a tremendous burden there is a just a flood of people coming through and they've got a process cases as quickly as possible there is a premium on obtaining admissions from clients because then they can send the person the smuggler lead back to mexico they can push the case into immigration court proceedings and not worry about going to criminal court in this particular case there was a pre interview prior to the videotaped interview the officer indicated that at that pre interview as he was discussing the case with her as he was interviewing the client interrogating her before he turned on the videotape he was agitated at that point with her he indicated that he had raised his voice prior to the interview how the immigration judge made a big deal out of the fact that he didn't raise his voice in the actual videotaped interview too until towards the end of the interview but the officer admitted that he had done so prior to turning on the videotape as well this was the situation of a woman who had gone to the doctor  been hounded to say things that were not necessarily true relevant that stopping things right there and saying well wait a minute let's let's trigger this out what's going on let me call on the supervisor let's get to the bottom of this i want to make sure that this is voluntary if you don't think it is we need to talk about  interested public benefit i believe there was some confusion by this officer of what she was receiving what she went on when he made a big deal out of something that was not necessarily a big deal again out part of that making sure that he was exerting influence  and fortune over her to make sure that she knew who was in control and that in order to get out of here she needed to comply with what he was leading her to do and again he led her to let me ask another question  chance to see that i did your honor and he purports to distinguish the case of the grounds that your client wasn't technically admitted into the united states i think that would be a fair reading of his letter here to comment on th a point that that needs to be clear however that doesn't mean that aliens in the situation of my client have no constitutional protections again this court in upholding the old to uphold the word even for i mean the state an alien who is applying for admission and especially in this case where my client has lived here for now going in one thousand years has been requested and children ages fifteen to ten  i understand the distinction that counsel is making but it does not completely deprive my client of all of her constitutional rights and of the right again to have any admissions that were made by her conform with notions of fundamental fairness and to not have some in disha that undermined the probative value of these statements that she made and we believe that there are plenty of of indicia here that undermine the probative value this is in fact and before you cross the border did you know that that person didn't have legal documents to enter the united states the petitioner yes three more times during the course of this interview the kitchen admitted that she knew but that we don't buy the distinction you make hernandez quote romney versus ashcroft if you find that that case applies could we hold that the area in allowing the eye to thirteen how has the burden of proof bears are on whether she's got the right of confrontation of witnesses against  so what you want that's usual with some evidence showing that she was not responsible that she did not have knowledge of this woman's lack of documentation and the fact that she presented the affidavit and then requested the subpoena and the court actually at one point deferred it making a ruling on what they would do if the sister wasn't there at the hearing and they did not chose not to enforce the subpoena severely prejudiced this find if the sister is there testifying the judge has to address that evidence right there she's going to that that doesn't work out well for you but don't you need to say i want to continue and have that you know what he said is that she's been prevented from receiving a fair hearing before this court by the sister not being there and that's it page two twenty eight of the administrative record the marital problems of prevented this critical witness from being here again he mentions that she's critical to the case and that she's been prevented from having a fair hearing by the sister not being there what i like him to have been more clear yet but i  believe he preserved the issue by alerting the judge to the fact that this was not a fair hearing because the sister had not been brought in with the subpoena thank you very much gentlemen the case just argued is submitted more