
    Daniel JAIMES-REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71169.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 24, 2011.
    Ann Kelleher, Law Offices of John R. Alcorn, Irvine, CA, for Petitioner.
    Seth A. Director, Jessica Renee Cusick Malloy, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny petitioner’s request for oral argument.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Jaimes-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Jaimes-Reyes failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009).

Jaimes-Reyes contends the IJ violated due process by refusing to admit into evidence a psychological evaluation submitted on the day of the hearing. Contrary to Jaimes-Reyes’s 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, Jaimes-Reyes failed to demonstrate that the additional evidence would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

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