Case ID: f-appx_400/html/0300-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fortino DIMAS-CRISTOBAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72790.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 25, 2010.
    Peter James Musser, Peter James Mus-ser a Professional Corporation, Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fortino Dimas-Cristobal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying is application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Dimas-Cristobal’s due process claim regarding the admission of expedited removal and voluntary departure documents on the day of his merits hearing fails because he failed to demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim); see also Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir.2007) (an expedited removal order interrupts an alien’s continuous physical presence for purposes of cancellation of removal).

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