Case Name: Maurilio Valle HERNANDEZ, Marie Eugenia Valle, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-12
Citations: 210 F. App'x 691
Docket Number: No. 03-70718
Parties: Maurilio Valle HERNANDEZ, Marie Eugenia Valle, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 691–692

Head Matter:
Maurilio Valle HERNANDEZ, Marie Eugenia Valle, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-70718.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006 .
Filed Dec. 12, 2006.
J. Jack Artz, Esq., South Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christopher C. Fuller, John D. Williams, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maurilio Valle Hernandez and Marie Eugenia Valle, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Ap peals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's order denying as untimely their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see Guzman v. INS, 318 F.3d 911, 912 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioners failed to demonstrate they were prejudiced by their immigration consultant's failure to timely file their applications for cancellation of removal because Petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 901-02 (9th Cir.2003).
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.