22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T50c,MEMORANDUM Marta Maricela Fajardo-Sandoval and Jose Ignacio Larios-Alcaraz, 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 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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T53e,

MEMORANDUM

Marta Maricela Fajardo-Sandoval and Jose Ignacio Larios-Alcaraz, 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 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.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.