Case Name: Beata BASISTA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-02
Citations: 87 F. App'x 74
Docket Number: No. 02-72022; Agency No. A76-357-503
Parties: Beata BASISTA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 87
Pages: 74–75

Head Matter:
Beata BASISTA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-72022.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2003.
Submission May 19, 2003.
Resubmitted Jan. 29, 2004.
Decided Feb. 2, 2004.
Suzanne B. Friedman, Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, David Dauenheimer, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Beata Basista appeals from denial of her application for asylum or withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed an immigration judge's denial of her application in a summary affirmance without opinion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7). Basista argues that the summary affirmance regulation violates her right to due process and is void for vagueness. These arguments are foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848, 850 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, the BIA's decision is
AFFIRMED.
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.