Marta Maricela Fajardo- Sandoval; Jose Ignacio Larios- Alcaraz 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTA MARICELA FAJARDO-
SANDOVAL; JOSE IGNACIO LARIOS-
ALCARAZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72955
Agency Nos. A078-051-611
A095-397-967
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Marta Maricela Fajardo-Sandoval and Jose Ignacio Larios-Alcaraz, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
FILED
DEC 22 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 06-72955 2
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 claims of due process violations in removal
proceedings, Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005),
and we deny the petition for review.
Contrary to the petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated due process by
limiting their direct testimony and their expert’s testimony, the proceedings were
not so fundamentally unfair that the petitioners “were prevented from reasonably
presenting [their] case.” See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000).
Moreover, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that additional testimony would
have potentially affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. (requiring
prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
The petitioners’ contention that the BIA misapprehended the facts is not
persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --