Case Name: Leopoldo NEGRETE HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-22
Citations: 362 F. App'x 856
Docket Number: No. 07-73937
Parties: Leopoldo NEGRETE HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 856–857

Head Matter:
Leopoldo NEGRETE HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73937.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 22, 2010.
Maribel Herrera, Considine, Sorensen & Trujillo, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner.
Jeffery R. Leist, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Leopoldo Negrete Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of 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 claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.
Negrete contends the IJ violated due process by excluding a letter from a doctor describing the environmental pollution in Ecatepec, Mexico. Contrary to Negrete'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). Moreover, Negrete failed to demonstrate that consideration of the letter may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. 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.