Case ID: f-appx_76/html/0221-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Reynaldo LOPEZ-RODRIGUEZ; Sara Lopez-Juarez; Marianita Juarez De Lopez; Blanca Azucena Lopez-Juarez, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71501.
    INS Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 16, 2003.
    
    Decided Sept. 30, 2003.
    Walter Rafael Pineda, Law Offices of Walter Rafael, 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, Emily Anne Radford, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Greg D. Mack, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before HUG, GIBSON and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable John R. Gibson, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

In their petition for review, the Lopez-Rodriguez family argued that they had settled expectations of their placement in deportation proceedings rather than removal proceedings if their asylum applications, which were filed before IIRIRA’s effective date of April 1,1997, were denied. Accordingly, they claimed that the application of IIRIRA’s removal provisions to them was impermissibly retroactive. They also argued that because the denial of an asylum application necessarily results in an INS proceeding, their case is distinguishable from Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594 (9th Cir.2002), and that their placement in removal proceedings violated their due process rights. As the Lopezes concede, however, their arguments are now foreclosed by Vasquez-Zavala v. INS, 324 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, the Lopezes’ petition for review is 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.