Case Name: Apolinar DIOSDADO-RIOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-02
Citations: 381 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 08-70323
Parties: Apolinar DIOSDADO-RIOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 671–672

Head Matter:
Apolinar DIOSDADO-RIOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70323.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 2, 2010.
Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Stephen J. Flynn, Senior Litigation Counsel, Arthur L. Rabin, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Apolinar Diosdado-Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision pretermitting his 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. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
Diosdado-Rios' claims that the preter-mission of his application for cancellation of removal violated his due process and equal protection rights are unavailing. See Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511-12 (9th Cir.2007) (an expedited removal order interrupts continuous physical presence for purposes of cancellation of removal, and Congress is within its discretion in drawing a distinction between those subjected to expedited removal and those who are not); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.