Case Name: Jesus ASCENCIO-LAZARO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-28
Citations: 193 F. App'x 699
Docket Number: No. 05-70133
Parties: Jesus ASCENCIO-LAZARO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 699–699

Head Matter:
Jesus ASCENCIO-LAZARO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70133.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 28, 2006.
Michael Hernandez, Los Angeles, 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, Genevieve Holm, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
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
Husband and wife Jesus Aseencio-Lazaro and Irais Ramos-Carillo, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") decision denying their applications 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.
Petitioners contend that the IJ violated due process by denying a continuance, refusing to consider evidence, and otherwise preventing them from presenting their case. Contrary to their contentions, 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, petitioners failed to demonstrate prejudice. 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.