Case Name: Jose NAVA-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-27
Citations: 341 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 07-70948
Parties: Jose NAVA-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 341
Pages: 315–316

Head Matter:
Jose NAVA-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70948.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 27, 2009.
David M. Paz Soldán, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
William C. Peachey, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Nava-Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.
Nava-Vazquez contends the IJ violated due process by denying his motion to re-cuse, without issuing a written decision. Contrary to .Nava-Vazquez's contention, he did not demonstrate that recusal or a written decision regarding recusal would have affected the agency's determination that Nava-Vazquez failed to demonstrate the requisite hardship. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.