552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009). Petitioners’ contentions that the Board failed to meaningfully review and analyze the issues raised on appeal do not raise a colorable due process claim. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). Petitioners contend they were denied due process because they were denied a chance to submit a brief in support of their appeal to the Board. We are unpersuaded. The Board acted within its discretion by finding petitioners did not rebut the presumption that the Board’s notice of briefing schedule and transcript of the proceedings, sent to their attorney’s mailing address, was mailed on the date indicated on the notice. See Haroutunian v. INS, 87 F.3d 374, 375 (9th Cir.1996); see also Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). We deny the petition for review as to
recognizing presumption of effective service by regular mail recognizing this presumption holding that the bia had imposed a new standardof proof by requiring the alien to provide substantial evidence to overcome a presumption of effective mail delivery recognizing presumption holding the rule 4 requirement of delivery to the appropriate united states attorney required personal service not service by certified mail