the handling of this hearing was much more egregious then the handling that was found to be a violation of due process used until there the judges held that there was in effect not adequate warning to approach the applicant but there was no documents there was no prevention of the applicant from putting on his case here you have much of the dark in there is the applicant clearly from evidence twelve documents all together on whether definitively a difference would have been reached a different outcome would've been reached but it's enough that it would potentially affect the other and we feel that that's clearly the case here when you're talking about twelve documents i would mention a couple very quickly one photographing name are there in the king who he is what he was what he did in his home country it was on english there was a side by side russian translation that the judge excluded this place on the grounds that the russian basis there been no citations the record or to any authority justifying that as a grounds for excluding evidence granted it's not that this procedure but in a case like this where this person's deportation of potential the judge eyeballed documents and translations and said well this doesn't appear to be the same length as the translation so i'm excluding it even though there was a certified translation by someone other than his prior charney and there were three or four documents excluded on that basis so it was very arbitrary behavior and it's rather suggest in addition to due process argument we have an argument that this is just simply was arbitrary behavior and therefore justifying reversal that was his assertion aaron there were numerous other statements from other members of his religious group which testified to the fact that he was a religious leader was very unpopular threatened based on just the evidence in the record or if you're basing that on the evidence that was excluded well without conceding the arguments on whether or not permissible are appropriate even those documents would not support a finding of a well founded fear of persecution in this case you're trying to general takes issue with the fact that it would members of his family who practice the same religion was still in russia i have to agree with you your honor that the record could be read that way alternately the standard you look at the immigration judges determination he first determined that there was no past persecution and therefore that the burden had not shifted to the government so then take a look at what the current conditions are in russia and circumstances that have gone either way and i'm not arguing here now a reasonable fact finder could not come to a contrary conclusion my principle argument here is that if you look at the standard of review but the evidence does not compel the contrary finding apparently the pentecostal religion i require proselytizing on the streets and he was arrested for doing that and and  hand out pamphlets that sort of thing i think so it's not on account of any particular religion and it's not persecution under the act it may be harassment and discrimination for his employed by the government he was living in a government apartment in which his family still resides there he voluntarily quit his job he came to the united states one of those years of use and become invited by another parish where there just like to briefly address the couple of the issues one regarding the trip to sweden this was in one thousand ninety one twelve years ago before the even breakup of the soviet union i do not believe that that should be held against him since that was far had behavior that occurred to two to my client was determined to be persecution and i believe that arrest under those circumstances where someone is expressing their religion well whether or not there's some statute which says it's absolutely i'd like to if i might just leave the court very briefly with i think from the case of the common are at the end of the case the court said we do not enjoy second guessing immigration judges run the way they run their courtrooms but one of the titian are so clearly the night of full and fair hearing we have no choice judges do little to impress the world that this country is the last best hope for freedom by displaying the hardy and closed mind  the forces asylum seekers are fleeing whether that we hear these claims out fully and clearly and then make an informed judgment on the merits this is consistent with our role as judges and the values our constitution demand no less i would ask you know