Case ID: f-appx_101/html/0269-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tomas Jimenez LOSA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73368.
    Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2004.
    
    Decided June 21, 2004.
    Walter Rafael Pineda, Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Perry, Jamie M. Dowd, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before HALL, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lead petitioner Tomas Jimenez-Losa, his wife and their two minor children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals summary affirmance without opinion of the Immigration Judge’s denial of their motion to terminate removal proceedings, and denial of their applications for cancellation of removal, asylum and withholding of removal.

Petitioners’ sole contention that the BIA’s streamlining regulations violate an alien’s right to due process is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the BIA’s streamlining procedure does not violate an alien’s due process rights).

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.