Case ID: f-appx_106/html/0532-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marisela BARAJAS-FLORES, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71420.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2004.
    
    Decided June 21, 2004.
    Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Josh Braunstein, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marisela Barajas-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal, and pretermission of her request for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to '8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo. See Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Barajas-Flores’s contention that she had a settled expectation that the denial of her asylum application would result in deportation proceedings because she filed her asylum application before the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act took effect is foreclosed by Vasquez-Zavala, 324 F.3d at 1108-09.

The BIA’s summary affirmance without opinion does not violate due process. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).

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.