Case Name: Remigio Zepeda CARRERA; Maria del Carmen Zepeda, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-24
Citations: 229 F. App'x 567
Docket Number: No. 06-70660
Parties: Remigio Zepeda CARRERA; Maria del Carmen Zepeda, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
Remigio Zepeda CARRERA; Maria del Carmen Zepeda, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70660.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 24, 2007.
Remigio Zepeda Carrera, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.
Maria Del Carmen Zepeda, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.
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, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, 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
Remigio Zepeda Carrera and his wife Maria del Carmen Zepeda, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary dismissal of their appeal of an immigration judge's denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Petitioners contend that the Board erred in summarily dismissing their appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A) for failure to provide meaningful notice of the specific issues contested, either in their notice of appeal or in a brief. Petitioners argue that they did not have the opportunity to file a brief because they never received a copy of the record of proceedings before the immigration judge. The record does not show that the petitioners informed the Board of their difficulties in obtaining the record. We therefore deny the petition for review. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.