FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERARDO CAMARGO MEDINA; No. 07-70929
CAROLINA CAMARGO,
Agency Nos. A079-537-720
Petitioners, A079-537-521
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
2 07-70929