Case Name: Victor Manuel Pantoja ELVIRA; Claudia Leticia Pantoja; Claudia Cesareo Ulloa, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-08
Citations: 395 F. App'x 395
Docket Number: No. 08-71269
Parties: Victor Manuel Pantoja ELVIRA; Claudia Leticia Pantoja; Claudia Cesareo Ulloa, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 395
Pages: 395–396

Head Matter:
Victor Manuel Pantoja ELVIRA; Claudia Leticia Pantoja; Claudia Cesareo Ulloa, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71269.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
Filed Sept. 8, 2010.
Elizabeth Torres, Foss and Torres, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lauren Fascett, DOJ-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: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, 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
Victor Manuel Pantoja Elvira, Claudia Leticia Pantoja, and family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") decision denying their application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
We reject petitioners' claim that they were deprived of a full and fair hearing based on the IJ's refusal to allow Leticia Pantoja to renew her withdrawn asylum application, because they failed to demonstrate prejudice. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.