22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4b7,MEMORANDUM Apolinar Diosdado-Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review. Diosdado-Rios’ claims that the preter-mission of his application for cancellation of removal violated his due process and equal protection rights are unavailing. See Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511-12 (9th Cir.2007) (an expedited removal order interrupts continuous physical presence for purposes of cancellation of removal, and Congress is within its discretion in drawing a distinction between those subjected to expedited removal and those who are not); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for due process violation). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4e4,

MEMORANDUM

Apolinar Diosdado-Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.

Diosdado-Rios’ claims that the preter-mission of his application for cancellation of removal violated his due process and equal protection rights are unavailing. See Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511-12 (9th Cir.2007) (an expedited removal order interrupts continuous physical presence for purposes of cancellation of removal, and Congress is within its discretion in drawing a distinction between those subjected to expedited removal and those who are not); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for due process violation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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