Case Name: Pablo Mora BARAJAS; Martha Alicia Medina Ceniceros, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-02
Citations: 302 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 05-72915
Parties: Pablo Mora BARAJAS; Martha Alicia Medina Ceniceros, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
Pablo Mora BARAJAS; Martha Alicia Medina Ceniceros, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72915.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
Sarah J.M. Jones, Esquire, Law Offices of Sarah J.M. Jones, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Jamie M. Dowd, Esquire, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Pablo Mora Barajas and Martha Alicia Medina Ceniceros, husband and wife and 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 applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not err in denying petitioners' request for a continuance because they failed to demonstrate that the IJ's decision may have affected the outcome of their proceeding. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice to succeed 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.