were fully aware of the potential conflict that would be set in motion if the appellate judgment issued: Specifically, issuance of the judgment would allow adoption of the children to proceed, notwithstanding that the appeal of parents’ motions under ORS 419B.923 — which, if successful, would vacate the judgment that formed the basis for those adoptions, see ORS 419B.527 — was still pending. The reasons for obtaining a stay were thus different — and significantly more compelling — at that stage in the proceedings than when the earlier motion was filed. Understood in that context, the probable value of the continuing availability of the procedure set out in ORS 419B.923 is minimal. Cf. Bennett v. Board of Optometry, 125 Or App 66, 71, 865 P2d 362 (1993), rev den, 318 Or 582 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Finally, turning to the public interest at
holding that petitioner did not exhaust his due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing by arguing that due process was violated on the ground that the ij admitted uncertified evidence holding that there is no due process violation where the ijs finding was not arbitrary and the alien was not denied a full and fair opportunity to present his claims holding that an optometrist contesting the revocation of his license was not denied his procedural due process rights where he was given the opportunity for hearing but failed to request one within the deadline period holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court holding that the petitioners due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing because the immigration judge was biased was the kind of procedural error that required exhaustion