Case Name: Samuel Rodriguez MONREAL; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-24
Citations: 295 F. App'x 132
Docket Number: No. 06-75600
Parties: Samuel Rodriguez MONREAL; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 295
Pages: 132–133

Head Matter:
Samuel Rodriguez MONREAL; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75600.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 24, 2008.
Nathan M. Zaslow, San Jose, CA, for Petitioners.
CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Stephen Elliott, James A. Hunolt, U.S. Department of Justice, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Samuel Rodriguez Monreal and Estela Duran De Rodriguez, married 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 questions of law and constitutional claims. Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners contend the IJ violated due process in her management of the presentation of testimony and evidence during their merits hearing. Contrary to petitioners' contention, the proceedings were not "so fundamentally unfair that [they were] prevented from reasonably presenting [their] case." Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, petitioners failed to demonstrate prejudice. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
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.