Opinion
No. 08-70958.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed July 12, 2010.
Helen A. Sklar, District Counsel, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Joan Estelle Smiley, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A075-736-591, A075-736-592.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Arturo Lopez Delgadillo and Guillermina Castillo de Lopez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA's conclusion that petitioners failed to establish any prejudice stemming from the IJ's denial of their request for a continuance, because they failed to state what testimony Dr. Morales would provide that might have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See CanoMerida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 965 (9th Cir. 2002) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).