Case Name: Audelina GUTIERREZ-ARREYGUE; Maria Fraga-Gutierrez; Omar Fraga-Gutierrez; Dioselina Fraga-Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-25
Citations: 271 F. App'x 632
Docket Number: No. 05-73651
Parties: Audelina GUTIERREZ-ARREYGUE; Maria Fraga-Gutierrez; Omar Fraga-Gutierrez; Dioselina Fraga-Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 632–633

Head Matter:
Audelina GUTIERREZ-ARREYGUE; Maria Fraga-Gutierrez; Omar Fraga-Gutierrez; Dioselina Fraga-Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73651.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 25, 2008.
Martin Roy Robles, Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Jeffrey J. Bernstein, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent..
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Audelina Gutierrez-Arreygue and her children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their request to terminate removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual determinations, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and de novo claims of due process violations, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that the government did not engage in affirmative misconduct regarding how petitioners presented themselves to the government. Accordingly, the IJ did not err in refusing to terminate proceedings in light of petitioners' Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request.
Petitioners' due process claims are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.