
    Gerardo Camargo MEDINA; Carolina Camargo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70929.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 10, 2010.
    Todd Becraft, Law Office of Todd Be-craft, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Gregory Michael Keleh, Lindsay Elizabeth Williams, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gerardo Camargo Medina and Carolina Camargo, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we grant the petition for review.

The Camargos contend the IJ violated procedural due process by conducting a merits hearing on July 18, 2005, when the immigration court had given the Camargos notice of a master hearing on that date. Because the Camargos were thus prevented from presenting the testimony of their hardship witnesses, the proceedings were rendered “so fundamentally unfair that [they were] prevented from reasonably presenting [their] case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, the Camargos demonstrated that additional testimony potentially may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 965 (9th Cir.2002) (prejudice is shown where violation potentially affected outcome of the proceedings).

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