Case Name: Francisco Mendoza TORRES; Susana Zepeda Esquivel, a.k.a. Susanna Cepeda-Quivil, Petitioners, 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: 442 F. App'x 250
Docket Number: No. 09-73986
Parties: Francisco Mendoza TORRES; Susana Zepeda Esquivel, a.k.a. Susanna Cepeda-Quivil, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 250–251

Head Matter:
Francisco Mendoza TORRES; Susana Zepeda Esquivel, a.k.a. Susanna Cepeda-Quivil, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73986.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 29, 2011.
Nicomedes E. Suriel, Supervisory, Law Offices of Nicomedes E. Suriel, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners.
Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, Trial, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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
Francisco Mendoza Torres and Susana Zepeda Esquivel, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We review de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners' claim that the IJ violated their due process rights by exhibiting bias and interrupting their testimony fails because the proceedings were not so fundamentally unfair that they were prevented from reasonably presenting their case, and they failed to demonstrate prejudice. See id. at 971-72; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.