Anselmo Alonso Herrera- Lopez, a.k.a. Anselmo Herrera Lopez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANSELMO ALONSO HERRERA-
LOPEZ, a.k.a. Anselmo Herrera Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70201
Agency No. A092-280-130
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Anselmo Alonso Herrera-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his application for
FILED
APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-70201 2
cancellation of removal and denying his motion for a continuance. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional
violations, and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a
continuance. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not violate Herrera-Lopez’s right to due process by pretermitting
his cancellation application without first giving him an opportunity to testify.
Herrera-Lopez has failed to show that his testimony concerning the outcome of the
criminal charges at issue may have affected his eligibility for relief. See id. at 1109
(to prevail on a due process claim, petitioner must show “that the outcome of the
proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation”) (citation omitted).
The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying Herrera-Lopez’s request for a
continuance where the proceedings had already been continued for more than a
year to allow Herrera-Lopez to file his application, and he was expressly placed on
notice during the previous hearing that the application must be complete. See id. at
1110 (setting forth factors to consider in reviewing the denial of a continuance).
Herrera-Lopez’s equal protection claim fails because he has not established
that he was treated differently from similarly situated persons. See id. at 1109 n.2.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --