Oscar Arturo Sanchez Hernandez; Alma Rosa Lara Batres v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR ARTURO SANCHEZ
HERNANDEZ; ALMA ROSA LARA
BATRES,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71333
Agency Nos. A075-749-304
A075-749-305
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Arturo Sanchez Hernandez and Alma Rosa Lara Batres, husband and
wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of
FILED
DEC 07 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JTK/Research 07-71333 2
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal and denying
their motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo claims of due process violations, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324
F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
We reject petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated due process by denying
their motion for an additional continuance. Petitioners received continuances
amounting to almost four years to allow them to obtain counsel and gather
evidence for their hearing, and their proceedings were therefore 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).
The evidence petitioners presented with their motion to remand concerned
the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal.
See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2006). We therefore

-- 2 of 3 --

JTK/Research 07-71333 3
lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence
was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See id. at 601.
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --