Alquicira v. Gonzales

MEMORANDUM ** Jose Antonio Ortiz Alquicira, Zenaida *674 Pastrana, and Luis Antonio Ortiz Pastrana seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s order denying their application for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an applicant has failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioners contend that the IJ violated due process and equal protection by failing to hold a separate hearing for Ortiz Pas-trana. Contrary to the contention, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, petitioners have failed to demonstrate that additional testimony would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *674 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.