Case Name: Antelma DELGADO and Bricio Delgado, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-12
Citations: 211 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 03-74365
Parties: Antelma DELGADO and Bricio Delgado, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 211
Pages: 614–615

Head Matter:
Antelma DELGADO and Bricio Delgado, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-74365.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
Filed Dec. 12, 2006.
James R. Patterson, Attorney at Law, San Diego, 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, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Margot L. Nadel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Antelma Delgado and her brother, Bricio Delgado, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order, on remand from this court, dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.
We remanded the case to the BIA for reconsideration in light of In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001). The BIA acted within its authority in determining, without remanding to the IJ, that Petitioners failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) ("The [BIA] may review questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals from decisions of immigration judges de novo").
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.