Case Name: Telesforo ALVAREZ-RAMOS; Herendira Alvarez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 195 F. App'x 619
Docket Number: No. 05-72030
Parties: Telesforo ALVAREZ-RAMOS; Herendira Alvarez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 619–620

Head Matter:
Telesforo ALVAREZ-RAMOS; Herendira Alvarez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72030.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed Aug. 1, 2006.
Robert F. Jacobs, Esq., Law Offices of Robert F. Jacobs, Downey, CA, for Petitioners.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Rhonda M. Dent, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights/Disability Rights Section, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Telesforo Alvarez-Ramos and his wife Herendira Alvarez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.
The petitioners contend that they were denied due process when the IJ refused to continue the hearing to allow for a psychological evaluation of their oldest United States citizen child. Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the proceedings were not "so fundamentally unfair that [they were] prevented from reasonably presenting [their] case." Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that additional evidence would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.