act at the time of his merits hearing through counsel mr modern attempt its net ten supplementary exhibits to the record the judge refused to admit these documents into the record refused to examine them to determine whether they were relevant to the case you not examine them to determine whether they were probative as he did not insert them into the administrative record for that to be reviewed upon appeal you regularly do immigration work i do your  do you have access to statistics on how often these are reversed i believe i've seen some statistics before your honor isn't this particular i j kind of notorious in the system for being in addition when the matter was appealed to the board of immigration appeals this issue was specifically raised to the b i a that this evidence was attempted to be submitted into the record in the judge refused it to be i am the appellate body handling the appeal did not even acknowledge that aspect of the brief even though that was the majority of the creep which was submitted to the b i a in fact the b i simply took the immigration judge's decision and in fact made a separate decision but was more in line with the decision of the immigration judge in so doing it neglected to even explain its reasons for not even agreeing with the immigration judge on the underlying merits of the decision in the case did you in so far as the b i was aware of the fact that there was a procedural due process issue it had the ability and the authority to correct that issue as well as you know it's it's one thing to argue that the immigration judge made a mistake that is forgot to or whatever the din of farai a series of documents from the petitioner wanted to admit that's certainly one thing that could have occurred inadvertently by mistake that whatever is quite another thing to suggest that an immigration judge has completely abandoned their neutral position and render the hearing unfair subset of that not the other way around that's what you're arguing now plus the two issues actually in a really your honor but why not i mean why not just put it right before the v i i the worst that can happen is that they say no it's ok i agree it should have been and you got it teed up for the court of appeals to take a look at it that's correct but nevertheless it's an issue that any appellate body reviewing the record should have recognized that there's it's already being argued that there's a due process violation here and if any highness fact with a record they're going to notice the repeated instances in which the immigration judge the i know this is a hypothetical question but if the if this immigration judge had inappropriately shifted the burden of proof that would be a due process violation if it could be established and would you say that because you raised the failure to identify evidence that that would necessarily bring to the thinking of the b i e and therefore petitioner to testify and at the same time failed to identify some documents and you only brought the failure to identify the documents out before the b i and then appealed from that could this court look  use failure to even allow your coin to justify i believe so because they both still fall under the gamut of a due process violation and i would also like to point out that these two concepts are interrelated  judge did not want to admit the additional ten documents that were proffered by the petitioners on the day of the hearing yet late later on in the hearing the immigration judge and so i attempted to do that very same thing when he attempted to submit a new york times article into the record and it's time to impeach the lead petitioner in this matter mr mata so in trucking so far as that issue falls over into the neutral factfinder issue it is intimately related to the initial issue about the admission of the ten judge is biased or interference in the testimony in regard to his particular challenges to them to the board and that is something that the board could have addressed this court has only require  heads considered liberally the allegations made and notices of appeal are breached generally speaking with regard to opposing alien here the alien was represented by counsel the entire time if these allegations were something that they wanted the board to focus on they could have raised them with specificity and the brief to the board has got a point doesn't the that on the one hand you have the judge not allowing documents three and then on the other recognize that he actually did not have the authority to to do that to introduce the evidence on his own so he did not enter despite evidence and that's why it may have been and why it was critical that he would bring out stats challenges to the board in the grief on appeal because if in fact he found that tend to prejudiced his case in some way he said i've made that known to a board rather the board looked at the evidence in the record and found that in fact there was different judge just i i don't know that this court has done now i do know that the seventh circuit has done now on occasion has really ended with instruction to assign it to a different i j discussed pretty notorious as involved so i don't particularly from the government's perspective need to know what judges are doing what so that would be something as a policy policy decision i think that the court and as well in conjunction with the justice department could maybe discuss and and so as i've mentioned procedural due process error with regard to the documents here the petitioner hasn't identified those with any particular understand his argument that he believes that he cannot attach those documents to show them to the board on appeal because the board doesn't accept new evidence on appeal however he traded at the very least have described what the documents were if only so that the board could have seen that those documents were in fact different from the thirteen documents that were already in the record with regard to country conditions responsibility here is make sure that the record  court has this court has recognized that in order to make out a claim party process you do need to show that there was some prejudice and and here there's prejudice to us my understanding correct me if  i'm wrong you know the normal procedure is the i j a holds a hearing there's a recorded transcript correct track that recorded transcript goes off to some other location in his transcript yes and the  never sees it before the case goes up to the b i does not do the transcript of the hearing yes i believe that's correct i believe he only sees the transcript of his decision yes yes what he said in terms of i d heightened the burden of the i j a to make sure that whether the evidence offered is the jennifer i am in the record still reviewing agencies and courts can and make an assessment of the prejudice if any from the failure to admit well and and so you're suggesting that the eyes he should have made sure that the nature of the documents were summarized prior to his exclusion of those documents or his decision not to admit that document  well in this case and i'm not sure that it was ever i'm not sure that they were actually presented to the immigration judge to review and i'm not certain what did i do his response was i think he said that he would not look at those documents because there were ten not a pretrial order when i counsel shows up with documents the court can certainly exercise its discretion to exclude them we would be able to see what they were and here we can i  know ordinarily we do not permit a counsel different than the counsel who argued to argue r couple very very pleased with regard to the first question of the court addressed to my colleague as to whether or not this case would be remanded to that specific immigration judge that would not be possible because he is now retired he's retired ten articles from various journalistic sources which i then a fight the religious group of coptic christians as subject of pattern practice of persecution in his native country as such that type of documentation would be relevant under this court's holdings in salem are going on which specifically addresses the issue of balancing the individual persecution suffered by the petitioner and the country conditions as they affect a specific insular minority had to with the coptic christians in this case so although the documentation might have been cumulative to a certain extent  what's his date of swearing you