Constantin Pistalu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CONSTANTIN PISTALU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72068
Agency No. A077-906-833
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
NOV 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72068 2
v. Mukasey, 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.

-- 2 of 2 --