Case ID: f-appx_114/html/0825-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ricardo RUVALCABA-ESQUEDA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72600.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 15, 2004.
    
    Decided Nov. 23, 2004.
    Howard R. Davis, Esq., Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, Immigration And Naturalization Service, Los Angeles, CA, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., U.S.Department of Justice Civil Division, Margaret K. Taylor, Office of Immigration and Litigation, Regina Byrd, Attorney, Margaret Perry, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, MCKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. See Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2). The clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
    
    
      
      The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ricardo Ruvalcaba-Esqueda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We deny the petition for review.

Ruvalcaba-Esqueda’s contentions challenging the BIA’s streamlining procedure are foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003).

Pursuant to Elian v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 897, 898-99 (9th Cir.2004) (order), Ruvalcaba-Esqueda’s voluntary departure period will begin to run upon issuance of this court’s 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.