Lolito Dela Cruz Banano, a/k/a Lolito De La Cruz Banano v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 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

-- 2 of 3 --

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 of 3 --