
    Jose Antonio ORTIZ ALQUICIRA; Zenaida Pastrana; Luis Antonio Ortiz Pastrana, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71114.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2007.
    
    Filed June 15, 2007.
    Jose Antonio Ortiz Alquicira, Hollywood, CA, pro se.
    Zenaida Pastrana, Hollywood, CA, pro se.
    Luis Antonio Ortiz Pastrana, Hollywood, CA, pro se.
    CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Daniel G. Lonergan, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Antonio Ortiz Alquicira, Zenaida 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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     