Lolito Dela Cruz Banano v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A204-041-399. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999777204]. [15-1897]

Appeal: 15-1897

Doc: 24

Filed: 03/18/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1897

LOLITO DELA CRUZ BANANO, a/k/a Lolito De La Cruz Banano,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

March 16, 2016

Decided:

March 18, 2016

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lourdes Santos Tancinco, TANCINCO LAW OFFICES, San Francisco,
California, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Stephen
J.
Flynn,
Assistant
Director, James A. Hurley, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1897

Doc: 24

Filed: 03/18/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lolito

Dela

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

cause shown.”

Judge

“may

grant

a

8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2015).

continuance

for

good

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

against a particular race or group.”
(internal quotation marks omitted).
and

Banano’s

claims,

we

find

no

discrimination

Lendo, 493 F.3d at 441
Upon review of the record

abuse

denial of his motion for a continuance.

of

discretion

in

the

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.
review due process claims de novo.
685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).

We

See Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d

We have reviewed the record in
2

Appeal: 15-1897

Doc: 24

Filed: 03/18/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3