Case Name: Jonathan Enrique MARTINEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-20
Citations: 108 F. App'x 463
Docket Number: No. 03-71228
Parties: Jonathan Enrique MARTINEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 463–464

Head Matter:
Jonathan Enrique MARTINEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71228.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
Decided Aug. 20, 2004.
Michael Franquinha, Law Office of Michael Franquinha, Phoenix, AZ, 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, District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Phoenix, AZ, OIL, Rena I. Curtis, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jonathan Enrique Martinez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance, without opinion, of an immigration judge's order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review de novo, Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir.2003), and deny the petition for review.
Since Petitioner filed his briefs, this Court has considered and rejected the same contentions he raises in Martinez-Garcia v. Ashcroft, No. 02-71043, 366 F.3d 732 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that Congress did not create a "statutory gap" in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act by failing to define when an alien was "in deportation proceedings"). Because Petitioner's con tentions are identical to those raised by his sister Ileana Martinez-Garcia in the aforementioned case, his petition is denied.
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.