Case ID: f-appx_405/html/0137-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Constantin PISTALU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72068.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 30, 2010.
    Constantin Pistalu, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Oil, Ann Carroll Varnon, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ins & Naturalization Service, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Constantin Pistalu, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual determinations, Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 832 (9th Cir.2003), and review de novo due process claims, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pistalu was inadmissible for having willfully misrepresented a material fact regarding the nature of his first marriage to a United States citizen in order to obtain an immigration benefit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i); Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 882-83 (9th Cir.2004).

Pistalu’s due process claim fails because he did not request a continuance at his last hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for due process claim).

Pistalu’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

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