
    Alberto Ivan Landeros GARDUNO; Ivonne Dekarla Landeros Garduno, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71611.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 26, 2008.
    Albert M. Sterwerf, Esq., Tustin, CA, for Petitioners.
    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, Christine Pécora Luster Fax, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alberto Ivan Landeros Garduño and Ivonne Dekarla Landeros Garduño, siblings and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that because the record establishes that petitioners are ineligible for the relief sought, their due process claims fail for lack of prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, the actions of the IJ, and their alleged inability to apply for relief as minors. See id. at 972 (requiring a showing that IJ’s conduct may have affected the outcome of proceedings); see also Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (requiting a showing that attorney’s conduct may have affected the outcome of proceedings).

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.
     