Armando Valencia Chavez; Norma Sylvia Valencia v. ERIC H. HOLDER, 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO VALENCIA CHAVEZ;
NORMA SYLVIA VALENCIA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71934
Agency Nos. A070-913-944
A070-913-945
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Armando Valencia Chavez and Norma Sylvia Valencia, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
applications for cancellation of removal for failure to prosecute. We have
FILED
AUG 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71934 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including
due process claims, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001), and we review
for abuse of discretion the pretermission of an application for cancellation of
removal for failure to comply with fingerprinting regulations. See Cui v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 1289, 1291-92 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion by pretermitting petitioners’ application
for cancellation of removal, where petitioners failed to comply with the
requirements to provide their fingerprints within the time authorized by the IJ. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c). The IJ instructed petitioners in both oral and written format
to submit themselves for fingerprinting, informed them of the consequences of a
failure to do so, and had already granted one continuance due to their
misunderstanding of fingerprint regulations, yet ten months later petitioners could
not provide a reasonable explanation for their failure to comply with the
fingerprinting requirement. Accordingly, the petitioners have not established that
their failure to comply was a result of good cause. See id.; cf. Cui, 538 F.3d at
1293-9. Petitioners’ due process contention fails as well. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring agency error for a petitioner to establish
a violation of due process).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --