also contend the IJ erred in not scheduling a hearing on the merits of their suspension applications prior to April 1, 1997, and in not advising them that with the enactment of IIRIRA, the stop-time rule would render them ineligible for suspension of deportation. This contention is unavailing because, even if the merits hearing had been held before IIRIRA went into effect on April 1, 1997, and the suspension rules therefore applied to petitioners’ case, they could not have shown they had been physically present for seven years since 1992. Petitioners’ contention that the lack of a complete record violates their rights is unavailing because the facts contained in the inadvertently erased tape recordings are undisputed. See United States v. Medina, 236 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Finally, petitioners contend that the BIA
holding that mere negligence does not implicate the right to due process holding that an alien is not deprived of due process if he or she receives actual notice of a denial of an application to withhold deportation holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice holding that the mere absence of a tape recording or transcript does not mean that an alien is deprived of his due process rights holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights