context: We have also considered the various bases for Chernov's claim that the immigration judge's conduct at the merits hearing violated his due process rights. On this record, we, like the Board, are not persuaded that there was a defect that rendered the hearing fundamentally unfair or that, if there was, any prejudice resulted therefrom.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: granting petition for review and holding the immigration judge violated due process in his conduct at the merits hearing, which included, among other things, "continually abus[ing] an increasingly distraught petitioner, rendering him unable to coherently respond to [the judge's] questions"
citation_a.sentence: See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir.2008); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1) (2012) (directing immigration judges to “interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien and any witnesses”); Iliev v. INS, 127 F.3d 638, 643 (7th Cir.1997) (explaining that the immigration judge “has broad discretion to control the manner of interrogation in order to ascertain the truth”); cf. Cham v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 445 F.3d 683 (3d Cir.2006) (granting petition for review and holding the immigration judge violated due process in his conduct at the merits hearing, which included, among other things, “continually abus[ing] an increasingly distraught petitioner, rendering him unable to coherently respond to [the judge’s] questions”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 127 F.3d 638, 643
citation_b.parenthetical: explaining that the immigration judge "has broad discretion to control the manner of interrogation in order to ascertain the truth"
citation_b.sentence: See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir.2008); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1) (2012) (directing immigration judges to “interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien and any witnesses”); Iliev v. INS, 127 F.3d 638, 643 (7th Cir.1997) (explaining that the immigration judge “has broad discretion to control the manner of interrogation in order to ascertain the truth”); cf. Cham v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 445 F.3d 683 (3d Cir.2006) (granting petition for review and holding the immigration judge violated due process in his conduct at the merits hearing, which included, among other things, “continually abus[ing] an increasingly distraught petitioner, rendering him unable to coherently respond to [the judge’s] questions”).