was requested by the attorney the attorneys should have requested an interpreter but at the same time there's a right to have an interpreter and the judge made findings all the way from the beginning of the case through the that an individual has the right to an interpreter to say an individual what does that mean a witness or a person under suspicion of violating the immigration laws was about to get thrown out of a country was that mean an individual in that case mackie's i believe was the respondent themselves but it really doesn't matter because the idea is to present evidence you have the right to present evidence without an interpreter whether it's from a for a witness or for the respondent the petitioner themselves that evidence does not go to the judge did anybody in this case ever ask for an interpreter a continuance for an interpreter anything though the attorney former attorney did not ask for an interpreter so what you're saying is somebody can show up announce ready after these things have been set for months walk in with a witness and announce that this person speaks some arcane dialect of chinese and that's all you have to do not even have to something else and isn't there some kind of responsibility that's put on the respondent respondents lawyer if they know that the this can't speak english to show up with an interpreter or before hearing starts at some appropriate time make a request for that there can be there was no discussion at the preliminary hearing about witnesses and lang which is it would it certainly would have been appropriate for the attorney of last fall is that well i don't know if there's really a fault because we're talking about the denial of a right to present evidence i'm not really sure that there's a fault in vile i think we have to balance the significant rights that was denied this remark studion by having his only as to what his father would have testified to if there were an interpreter to allow the court below to judge the importance of the father's testimony and to allow us to judge whether that where those couple of options were not utilized by the attorney and so we have an individual who after being here for over twenty years in this country who had a very viable c able to present that evidence in the by that evidence i mean for instance his father's health condition i finally put it in the government's brief they mention that the health condition of the father was one issue that was not discussed or testified to by mr matsui that his father his father didn't know most about his own health condition and that was something cannot communicate and health condition is a very important factor when we're talking about hardship are the only cases that require an interpreter those cases where the interpreter must be provided for the respondent so that not only can he testify in his own behalf but also understand the nature of the proceedings there's two reasons why he should have a translator not just as a testimonial because he may not be able to testify on that particular issue he must have a translator so he can understand what's going on  to provide a translator at no expense to the respondent i haven't found one that i would have to look like i would ask for that opportunity to try to find a case the individuals who will be not an opportunity to present evidence because i mean you know you counsel i think i have to disagree with you this is if there's any fault here it's the fault of the lawyer down at the if the administrative level i cannot believe that a lawyer would show up with a witness who can't speak english and i just sort of throw up his hands not even to put into the record an offer of proof not ask for a continuance not ask rick for an interpreter just obviously take somebodies money and go home the the attorney should have prepare his witness i mean he would have been in the best position to know whether his father could speak english or not his father was able to answer some of the questions though not necessarily in you know the most correct english but he was able to answer the questions and there were language just difficulties but what we don't we question he really didn't seem to be able to answer it had to do with what exactly what exactly his health problem was and who were taking care of it by that i mean who was he wanted to present lee there was nothing to indicate that he was cut short or anything like that and i correctly distill your arguments do i hear you saying that even if we were to assume there was some right here it was harmless in any event given his record your honor it would is there a case or rule or regulation anywhere that talks about the court's responsibility the immigration judges responsibility to provide some response interpreter for a witness who's having problems or i'm not aware of one plan for these things interpreters are not i'm on call or i'm just standing there waiting to get a call from from the immigration court these things can be planned months in advance weeks in advance for there to be an interpreter abused by any litigant self serving it be a blunder to do otherwise right yes yes i mean it well now this question is this whether any credibility findings adverse to documents including the view to that of that so what why should we not say that the i j a erred in finding that he didn't carry the burden of proof on his chair i'm sorry but one of the other where the question was the definition of a child for hardship purposes and this court found that because it was a purely legal issue even though it dealt with the hardship issue of cancellation of removal that this court problems the crime of adulthood workability he has no roots or ties the united states no if unity service clubs society groups organizations owns no property of businesses speaks english army or an arabic he never did united states military service he hasn't traffic violations he only has to try for two years and his work skills wash repairer transfer isn't that a sufficient grounds for discretionary denial which dives don't know what other evidence would have come in front of the judge on the hardship was he supporting his father economically yes he was the main support how by giving him money he gave his mother and father the majority of the money he did have two families also in los angeles area but explained the reasons why they couldn't participate economically much his sister had a child and was a single mom and his brother was working part time so the testimony is that he gave the great majority submit on the briefs will call imperial corporation of america versus carmel partners