
    Armando VALENCIA CHAVEZ; Norma Sylvia Valencia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71934.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 27, 2010.
    Juan Antonio Laguna, Law Offices of Juan A. Laguna, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners.
    Armando Valencia Chavez, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Norma Silvia Valencia, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Armando Valencia Chavez and Norma Sylvia Valencia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including due process claims, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we review for abuse of discretion the pret-ermission of an application for cancellation of removal for failure to comply with fingerprinting regulations. See Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1291-92 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion by pretermitting petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal, where petitioners failed to comply with the requirements to provide their fingerprints within the time authorized by the IJ. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c). The IJ instructed petitioners in both oral and written .format to submit themselves for fingerprinting, informed them of the consequences of a failure to do so, and had already granted one continuance due to their misunderstanding of fingerprint regulations, yet ten months later petitioners could not provide a reasonable explanation for their failure to comply with the fingerprinting requirement. Accordingly, the petitioners have not established that their failure to comply was a result of good cause. See id.; cf. Cui, 538 F.3d at 1293-94. Petitioners’ due process contention fails as well. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring agency error for a petitioner to establish a violation of due process).

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