Case Name: Leobardo BUSTAMANTE JIMENEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-20
Citations: 176 F. App'x 861
Docket Number: No. 04-72755
Parties: Leobardo BUSTAMANTE JIMENEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 861–861

Head Matter:
Leobardo BUSTAMANTE JIMENEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-72755.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2006.
Filed April 20, 2006.
Edgardo Quintanilla, Esq., Attorney at Law, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Leobardo Bustamante Jimenez, his wife Margarita Rios Reynoso, and their son Jorge Bustamante Rios, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance without opinion of an immigration judge's pretermission of their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that petitioners failed to established the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence because they conceded through counsel that they left the United States for a period of more than ninety days between May 1992 and August 1992, and the Notice to Appear was issued in May of 2002. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A) and (d)(2) (stating that a departure of more than ninety days breaks the accrual of continuous physical presence and requiring ten year's of continuous physical presence immediately preceding issuance of the Notice to Appear).
We reject petitioners' contention that the IJ deprived them of due process by failing to develop the record concerning their 1992 departure. See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (requiring prejudice to establish a due process violation during immigration proceedings).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.