Florencio Lopez-Villanueva v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

408 F. App'x 28
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 6, 2011
Docket08-73242
StatusUnpublished

This text of 408 F. App'x 28 (Florencio Lopez-Villanueva v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Florencio Lopez-Villanueva v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 408 F. App'x 28 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Florencio Lopez-Villanueva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ *29 (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006), and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-Villanueva did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the record includes a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal as well as other government documents corroborating the expedited removal. See Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir.2007) (expedited removal order interrupts an alien’s continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes).

Lopez-Villaneuva’s due process claims fail because he cannot demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim); see also Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir.1995) (presuming reliability of authenticated immigration forms).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
408 F. App'x 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florencio-lopez-villanueva-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2011.