Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo clai ega Sanchez, his father, and his employer, and the IJ’s legal analysis was specific to his claim. Although the IJ incorrectly cited Vega Sanchez’s entry date, the exact date did not affect the IJ’s analysis because the 10-year continuous physical presence requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(1) was not at issue. Vega Sanchez next contends he was denied a full and fair hearing because the IJ was biased. The record before us indicates Vega Sanchez was not prevented from reasonably presenting his case. Cf. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Vega Sanchez’s challenge to the BIA’s
holding that judges comments to jury during equal pay act trial were harmless error holding an immigration judges pretrial comments and limits on petitioners testimony prevented petitioner from presenting his case holding that  2241 was the proper statute for the petitioners pretrial double jeopardy challenge holding that trial judges admonition of the jury to disregard prosecutors comments on the defendants failure to testify did not cure the error holding that in order to raise prejudicial comments of trial court on appeal defendant must object to comments when made and move for a mistrial