Victor Manuel Pantoja Elvira; Claudia Leticia Pantoja; Claudia Cesareo Ulloa 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VICTOR MANUEL PANTOJA ELVIRA;
CLAUDIA LETICIA PANTOJA;
CLAUDIA CESAREO ULLOA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71269
Agency Nos. A091-661-817
A091-864-571
A091-864-572
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Victor Manuel Pantoja Elvira, Claudia Leticia Pantoja, and family, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
FILED
SEP 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71269 2
their application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration
proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny
the petition for review.
We reject petitioners’ claim that they were deprived of a full and fair hearing
based on the IJ’s refusal to allow Leticia Pantoja to renew her withdrawn asylum
application, because they failed to demonstrate prejudice. See Colmenar v. INS,
210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process
challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --