
    Julio DIAZ-LEIVA; Maria Teresa Rayon-Sanchez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71303.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 29, 2011.
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Stender & Associates, P.C., San Diego, CA, for Petitioners.
    Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial, Justin Robert Markel, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Julio Diaz-Leiva, a native and citizen of El Salvador, and Maria Teresa Rayon-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by summarily dismissing petitioners’ appeal where petitioners have conceded that they failed to specify the reasons for their appeal on the Notice of Appeal, and failed to file a promised written brief or to explain their failure to do so. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (showing of error required to prevail on a due process claim).

Petitioners’ request for judicial notice of evidence later submitted in connection with their motion for reconsideration is denied. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996).

Petitioners’ request to hold this case in abeyance is denied.

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