Case Name: Santiago Rosael MAZARIEGOS-DE LEON; Aurelia Cipriana Tecun, 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 600
Docket Number: No. 05-76115
Parties: Santiago Rosael MAZARIEGOS-DE LEON; Aurelia Cipriana Tecun, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 600–601

Head Matter:
Santiago Rosael MAZARIEGOS-DE LEON; Aurelia Cipriana Tecun, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76115.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
Jonathan Myles Kaufman, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Alexis L. Collins, 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
Santiago Rosael Mazariegos-De Leon and Aurelia Cipriana Tecun, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and due process challenges. Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners contend that their Notices to Appear ("NTA") were defective because the issuing officer was not identified, and that the agency improperly applied a presumption of regularity. These arguments are foreclosed by Kohli id. at 1065-68 (rejecting similar argument on ground that no "statute or regulation requires the inclusion of the name and title of the issuing officer on the NTA" and noting that presumption of regularity was proper in this context).
Petitioners' due process claim fails because it is predicated on these foreclosed contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.