Case Name: Fernando M. GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 194 F. App'x 456
Docket Number: No. 05-75189
Parties: Fernando M. GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 456–457

Head Matter:
Fernando M. GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75189.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 31, 2006.
Fernando M. Garcia, National City, CA, pro se.
District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kathryn A. Snyder, AUSA, USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, 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
Fernando M. Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his 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, Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not support Garcia's contention that the IJ's conduct during the merits hearing violated due process. Contrary to Garcia's contention, the proceedings were not "so fundamentally unfair that he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case." Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted).
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.