Case Name: Maria Guadalupe MURGUIA-LEGASPI; Jose Antonio Cardenas-Alvarado, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-25
Citations: 88 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 02-71362; Agency Nos. A75-496-873, A75-496-872
Parties: Maria Guadalupe MURGUIA-LEGASPI; Jose Antonio Cardenas-Alvarado, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
Maria Guadalupe MURGUIA-LEGASPI; Jose Antonio Cardenas-Alvarado, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71362.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
Maria Guadalupe Murguia-Legaspi, Jose Antonio Cardenas-Alvarado, Anaheim, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Shelley R. Goad, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Guadalupe Murguia-Legaspi and her husband Jose Antonio Cardenas-Alvarado, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process challenges. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1269-71 (9th Cir.2001) We deny the petition for review.
The petitioners' due process challenge fails because they did not indicate what evidence their attorney's allegedly deficient representation prevented them from submitting evidence that would establish "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship." See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 901 (9th Cir.2002) (indicating that a due process claim succeeds only where prejudice is shown).
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.