
    Miguel Angel Sanchez AGUILAR; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73302.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 4, 2007.
    Filed April 9, 2007.
    Gloria Lopez, Law Office of Gloria Lopez, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Russell J.E. Verby, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

On December 1, 2006, this court ordered the petitioners to show cause why the petition for review should not be summarily denied. This court has received and reviewed petitioners’ response, dated December 4, 2006.

Petitioners admit that they were each convicted under California Welfare and Institutions § 10890, under which the maximum possible sentence is three years. Petitioners are therefore inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A), and do not qualify for the exception outlined at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii). Accordingly, to the extent petitioners contend the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) violated their constitutional rights, their contention is unavailing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (explaining that petitioner must show error to prevail on due process claim).

In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in upholding the Immigration Judge’s denial of withholding of removal, because petitioners did not establish that it was more likely than not that they would be persecuted on account of a protected ground if returned to Mexico. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995).

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