Case ID: f-appx_97/html/0193-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Antonio LARA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73228.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 10, 2004.
    
    Decided May 18, 2004.
    Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony P. Nicastro, Esq., David Dauenheimer, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Antonio Lara, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Although we lack jurisdiction over discretionary decisions, Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003), we review de novo due process challenges, Lopez-Urenda v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Lara’s sole contention on appeal is that the BIA’s decision without opinion does not comport with due process. This contention is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850 (9th Cir.2003).

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, No. 03-70477, petitioner’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the motion for stay of removal was continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.