Lolito Dela Cruz Banano v. Loretta Lynch

Fourth Circuit

Lolito Dela Cruz Banano v. Loretta Lynch

641 F. App'x 254

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 18, 2016

Docket15-1897

StatusUnpublished

This text of 641 F. App'x 254 (Lolito Dela Cruz Banano v. Loretta Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lolito Dela Cruz Banano v. Loretta Lynch, 641 F. App'x 254 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lolito Déla Cruz Banano, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his motion for a continuance.

An Immigration Judge “may grant a continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2015). We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir.2007); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir.1998). We will uphold the denial of a continuance “unless it was made without a rational explanation, it inexplicably departed from established policies, or it rested on an impermissible basis, e.g., invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.” Lendo, 493 F.3d at 441 (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review of the record and Banano’s claims, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion for a continuance. See In re Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 790-92 (B.I.A.2009).

Banano also contends that his due process rights were violated during the proceedings because the agency disregarded his evidence and would not allow him to adequately develop the record with respect to the bona fides of his marriage. We review due process claims de novo. See Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir.2008). We have reviewed the record in light of Banano’s specific contentions and conclude that Banano cannot succeed on his due process claim because he fails to demonstrate that any alleged defects prejudiced the outcome of his case. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir.2008).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

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

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lolito Déla Cruz Banano, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his motion for a continuance.

An Immigration Judge “may grant a continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2015). We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir.2007); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir.1998). We will uphold the denial of a continuance “unless it was made without a rational explanation, it inexplicably departed from established policies, or it rested on an impermissible basis, e.g., invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.” Lendo, 493 F.3d at 441 (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review of the record and Banano’s claims, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion for a continuance. See In re Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 790-92 (B.I.A.2009).

Banano also contends that his due process rights were violated during the proceedings because the agency disregarded his evidence and would not allow him to adequately develop the record with respect to the bona fides of his marriage. We review due process claims de novo. See Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir.2008). We have reviewed the record in light of Banano’s specific contentions and conclude that Banano cannot succeed on his due process claim because he fails to demonstrate that any alleged defects prejudiced the outcome of his case. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir.2008).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 F. App'x 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lolito-dela-cruz-banano-v-loretta-lynch-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack