Case ID: f-appx_388/html/0660-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ramon Adolfo CORDOBA-JIMENEZ; Maria Isabel Viveros De Cordoba, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71901.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 19, 2010.
    Charles E. Nichol, Law Offices of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lindsay Elizabeth Williams, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramon Adolfo Cordoba-Jimenez and Maria Isabel Viveros De Cordoba, 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”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Petitioners’ claim that the IJ violated due process by not considering their new hardship evidence fails because the BIA considered petitioners’ motion to reopen under the same standard that the IJ would have and concluded that petitioners failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice for a petition to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.