Case Name: Ricardo Ernesto AVALOS-PADILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-29
Citations: 441 F. App'x 448
Docket Number: No. 09-73165
Parties: Ricardo Ernesto AVALOS-PADILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 448–449

Head Matter:
Ricardo Ernesto AVALOS-PADILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73165.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 29, 2011.
Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Ricardo Ernesto Avalos-Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from 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, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1245-46 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Avalos-Padilla's due process claim fails because Avalos-Padilla was given the opportunity to present witnesses on his behalf, he failed to request a continuance when they did not appear, and he failed to demonstrate that the absence of their testimony prejudiced him. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
Avalos-Padilla's contention that the IJ improperly judged his application on the basis of his witnesses' failure to appear at his hearing is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.