Pedro Manuel Perez Higueroa; v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PEDRO MANUEL PEREZ HIGUEROA;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72624
Agency Nos. A095-446-753
A095-446-754
A095-446-755
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 9, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Manuel Perez-Higuera, Iliana Rosario Perez, and their son Cristian
Omar Perez-Gaxiola, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
FILED
FEB 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process
violations in removal proceedings, Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109
(9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Petitioners contend they were deprived of a full and fair hearing because the
immigration judge exhibited bias and hostility toward their counsel. Petitioners,
however, have failed to establish that the exchanges between the immigration
judge and counsel prevented them from reasonably presenting their case or
introducing testimony. See Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th Cir.
2009); Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2007). In
addition, Petitioners have failed to demonstrate prejudice. Hassan v. INS, 927 F.2d
465, 469 (9th Cir. 1991).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --