Court Opinion

ID: 8610322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 07:53:40.148658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:20.171613
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Juan Ricardo Sandoval Salas and Yesenia Gonzalez seek review of an order of the *724Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners contend the IJ violated due process by prejudging the case and curtailing Sandoval Salas’ testimony. Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [they were] prevented from reasonably presenting [their] case.” See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, petitioners failed to demonstrate that additional testimony would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.