Case Name: Hermelindo Arriaga BECERRA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-11
Citations: 84 F. App'x 785
Docket Number: No. 03-70640
Parties: Hermelindo Arriaga BECERRA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 785–785

Head Matter:
Hermelindo Arriaga BECERRA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-70640.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 11, 2003.
Hermelindo Arriaga Becerra, pro se, North Hollywood, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, John J. Andre, Esq., Donald E. Keener, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hermelindo Arriaga Becerra petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for suspension of deportation and voluntary departure. We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary decisions to deny suspension of deportation, Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1997), and voluntary departure, Antonio-Cruz v. INS, 147 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir.1998).
Arriaga Becerra's contention that the BIA's streamlining procedure violates due process is foreclosed by Carriche v. Ashcroft, No. 02-71143, 2003 WL 22770121, at *3 (9th Cir. Nov.24, 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
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.