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:T44e,MEMORANDUM Jaime Luis Zamora-Maldonado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo due process claims. Colmenar v. I.N.S., 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review. The record does not support Zamora-Maldonado’s contention that he was denied a full and fair hearing. See id. (due process claims require showing that proceedings were “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner “had ample opportunity to present his case, and the record as a whole does not suggest that the IJ did not conduct the hearing with an open mind”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T47b,

MEMORANDUM

Jaime Luis Zamora-Maldonado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo due process claims. Colmenar v. I.N.S., 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not support Zamora-Maldonado’s contention that he was denied a full and fair hearing. See id. (due process claims require showing that proceedings were “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner “had ample opportunity to present his case, and the record as a whole does not suggest that the IJ did not conduct the hearing with an open mind”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.