Ramon Adolfo Cordoba- Jimenez; Maria Isabel Viveros De Cordoba 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMON ADOLFO CORDOBA-
JIMENEZ; MARIA ISABEL VIVEROS
DE CORDOBA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71901
Agency Nos. A079-290-250
A079-290-251
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Adolfo Cordoba-Jimenez and Maria Isabel Viveros De Cordoba,
natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71901 2
removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Vasquez-Zavala v.
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Petitioners’ claim that the IJ violated due process by not considering their
new hardship evidence fails because the BIA considered petitioners’ motion to
reopen under the same standard that the IJ would have and concluded that
petitioners failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice for a
petition to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --