Case Name: Marta Maricela FAJARDO-SANDOVAL; Jose Ignacio Larios-Alcaraz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-22
Citations: 360 F. App'x 742
Docket Number: No. 06-72955
Parties: Marta Maricela FAJARDO-SANDOVAL; Jose Ignacio Larios-Alcaraz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 742–742

Head Matter:
Marta Maricela FAJARDO-SANDOVAL; Jose Ignacio Larios-Alcaraz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72955.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 22, 2009.
Robert Bradford Jobe, Esq., Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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
Marta Maricela Fajardo-Sandoval and Jose Ignacio Larios-Alcaraz, 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 have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
Contrary to the petitioners' contention that the IJ violated due process by limiting their direct testimony and their expert's testimony, the proceedings were not so fundamentally unfair that the petitioners "were prevented from reasonably presenting [their] case." See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). Moreover, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that additional testimony would have potentially affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
The petitioners' contention that the BIA misapprehended the facts is not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.