Case ID: f-appx_103/html/0293-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesus GODINES; Maria Munoz, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72962.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2004.
    
    Decided July 19, 2004.
    Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    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, Christopher C. Fuller, William C. Minick, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Godines and Maria Munoz, husband and wife, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal and Go-dines’ application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Petitioners contend that no asylum or cancellation of removal case could ever properly be streamlined by the BIA under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) because such cases invariably involve a “novel fact situation.” We reject this contention because not every fact based case is “novel in the eyes of the law.” See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA’s streamlining regulations violate due process is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche, 350 F.3d at 849-52 (holding that the BIA’s streamlining procedure does not violate an alien’s due process rights).

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), petitioners’ motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the 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.