Case ID: f-appx_386/html/0738-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arturo LOPEZ DELGADILLO; Guillermina Castillo de Lopez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70958.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 12, 2010.
    Helen A. Sklar, District Counsel, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, 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.
    Before: ALARCON, 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

Arturo Lopez Delgadillo and Guillermi-na 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 Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 965 (9th Cir.2002) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

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