they can hire an attorney and he can be heard administratively and he can appeal to an article three court and in go to the supreme court under the rules of evidence be a judge by the own choosing your honor that's going to have a right he did that but when he tried to exercise that right at a later date as a period of time passed by he tried to obtain counsel it's on the record that he he made efforts to try to obtain counsel happened here is that he shows up and he says i've got i've got a friend here with some money who can hire me a liar and the i j a says but you had a chance you a warrant you know you came here without a lawyer to proceed without a lawyer and then the is probably a better idea for me to ask you questions rather than for you to ask yourself and the only reason i'm going to be questioning you is to give you a chance to present your story and if there's something i don't give you a chance to describe you can tell me th lawyer i think in the portion that you refer to that's correct that was at the beginning of the hearing but if you read the transcript of what ensued after that it's pretty plain to see that the spartan wasn't given a fair hearing he wasn't able to ask questions in fact he was told repeatedly such things as we're not here to tell us your story you're here to answer my questions and by the end of the hearing his lawyer if i can say it that way didn't like him very much i think that's pretty clear the record and i think that was part of the problem i think you know we're we're humans and that's individual maybe graded on the judge somewhat but i don't think that's a reason to curtail someone's ability and their day in court i think the exact term was expeditious ness of the judge's calendar but there needs to be more consideration than that and that that was an abuse of his discretion because when you balance the two sides when you balance the fact that there was an individual from a foreign country was not familiar with the english is true but i think after that happened i would conceive that he did have the warning that he needed to have an attorney present with him at the next hearing but i think it goes beyond that i think it's more important than that because you could see what happened in the hearing in the course of the hearing why the need for him to have an attorney present was so important he was willing to do that he was willing to pay for it and i think given what happened in the course of the hearing later on the ministers of convenience continuances correct things like there was a translator available at his first or second hearings so i don't think he ever had ever asked for a continuance before this one that's correct after being told i'm going to turn right that's true good morning your honour's me please the court my name is thankful vander starr and i represent the attorney general in this matter your honor so what we're what we're addressing here is whether or not the immigration judges denial  could get one for free or a lower fee and was given a list of those groups and organizations again at the october first one thousand nine hundred eight hearing he was advised of his right to obtain counsel then november nineteenth ninety eight hearing again in fact he was advised twice and where were they were and i lose track a little bit some of the early hearings were in arizona when we went to the first ever hearing in las vegas oh your honor think he was he was incarcerated in arizona at the beginning i know yes i'm trying to figure out ok when did they let him out of jail so that he actually just got walking around looking for a lawyer my recollection and i know  circumstances you know ample warning ample time no showing that he did not understand the warning that ok we're going to go forward without a lawyer now made me it would have been sort of a kinder thing to do  shows up and said i've got a friend with money to do but i'm not sure it's something that we're in a position to reverse that's all we have but then you have the judge doing the questioning becoming hostile awfully quickly and i i don't know whether i should be doing this but i looked up on the internet this judge as of the last thing i get off the internet is have held four hundred sixteen asylum hearings and granted one i don't want that guy as my lawyer finally i thought i'm seeking asylum so what do i do when i put into this not only that a lawyer has been denied but this is the person who's questioning me well your honor first of all although what you discovered on the internet certainly sounds compelling well i don't know if it's compelling i don't want to push it that hard as this is just i'm trying to work my way through how this will to think about this i think that the court needs plenty of opportunity to say everything that he wanted to say and there is some case law i don't have any of the sites off the top of my head but this court has issued decisions wherein the immigration judge has become frustrated and has tried to get the her to back on track that sort of thing and that's that's not an inappropriate way to conduct proceedings an immigration judge is the one who needs to keep the proceedings on track in the interest of judicial khana me and efficiency and frankly no other the inappropriate for me not be reversible could reading of the transcript yes there were times that the immigration judge said mr i have enough if you are not answering the questions as i'm putting them to you you are not allowing the interpreter to interpret you are frustrating these proceedings are also times when he says be quiet there are also times when he says you're one of the most little one of those rude individual i had in front of me there's also a time when he says nobody asked you to come to this country nobody told you the streets were paved with gold that's that i think those are all direct quotations  those quotations from the record what i'd like to point out is other parts of the hearing other parts of the immigration judges conduct where he took great pains to explain to the press the process and the procedure to the petitioner where he took great pains to say well since you don't have an attorney i'll do the questioning here's thank you on why well and here's why and certainly i want you to be able to say whatever you want to say so if i haven't steered you in a direction and of course it doesn't let him say whatever you want to say he says be quiet he says i don't want to hear about your wife i don't want to hear about that now i understand what the i just doing he's trying to keep him on track for been nothing presented by counsel regarding any evidence that he was foreclosed from presenting to the immigration bill you know again i'm not sure it's reversible i was struck by by the time we're finished with a questioning mr ivan off and then we get to the government attorney questioning mr ivan are what should be the cross examination which makes the story worst than tell the government is questioning mr ivan off that we find out that his uncle was probably has a problem fled the country after his uncle fled the country the authorities parade his would suppose and coughing around filled with rocks his mother is jailed that a cousin is killed we find that out when the government is questioning we didn't find out when the i j a was questioning saying you can now i'm not saying that we have a compelling case based on that but it's one of the more than what's favorable information he has was not brought out during the questioning by the i j a well however it was brought out is what is and the actual record and if i were left to figure out which of us driving off claim based upon he what he was presented be able to present during direct testimony on the i just as you can say anything you want but no doesn't let him do it well i asked half of this claim isn't there how do i know there isn't something else there that a competent lawyer could have brought out well there's in counsel's opening brief to this court there is there is nothing presented in terms of here is evidence that should have been brought and that was not because of the way the questioning happened here is what he would have testified to but the fact that he was intimidated or crighton or told to be quiet here here is the missing part of his claim now understandably that would essentially be evidence outside the record but certainly it's valid to bring that sort of thing up when the claim then as mike petitioner did not get a fair hearing and was unable to fully develop his claim and we simply don't have any discussion about what other parts of his claim he would have presented but for the conduct of the hearings i don't know how much contact you folks have with js but there's something about this that's obviously a little trouble correct that's correct if there are no other questions the government's admits that it was not an abuse of discretion for the immigration judge to deny mr i've announced a request for a continuance to obtain an attorney and that there was essentially no due process violation in the conduct of this hearing because ultimately he was not prejudiced he was able to present his claim which on the record that we have we have the immigration issue immigration judge saying things like when asked about his his teaching career saying i don't want to know what's going on i just want you to answer the questions how can a person in that situation feel comfortable to tell his story fully and completely and we can see enough from a record that shows he was cut off he was told to be quiet he was told i don't want to know what's going on just answer my questions he was told stop shuffling through those papers if you don't know know that you can say anything else that you want you think as well i think in summary that there should be a balance between the the delays that were caused by getting the spilling to obtain an attorney in a timely fashion very in mind that he did only request one time to have his case continued to obtain counsel and he represented to the court to get the funds and the means the ability to do so and i think what happened afterwards demonstrates clearly that he needed to have an attorney there and it served his due process to to have continued the case  the case of i have an office ashcroft is now submitted for decision