Fortino Dimas-Cristobal 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FORTINO DIMAS-CRISTOBAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72790
Agency No. A097-818-210
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
OCT 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72790 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --