Case Name: Benjamin GARCIA and Edelmira Osuna-Medina, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-19
Citations: 107 F. App'x 131
Docket Number: No. 02-72026
Parties: Benjamin GARCIA and Edelmira Osuna-Medina, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 107
Pages: 131–131

Head Matter:
Benjamin GARCIA and Edelmira Osuna-Medina, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-72026.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
Decided Aug. 19, 2004.
Jorge I. Rodriguez-Choi, Esq., Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, Ben Garcia, Edelmira Gacria, San Jose, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Patrick Shen, DOJ — 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
Benjamin Garcia and his wife, Edelmira Osuna-Medina, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of the decision of an immigration judge ("U") denying their applications for suspension of deportation. The transitional rules apply and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 n. 2 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners' contention that the BIA's summary affirmance without an opinion violates due process is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848-49 (9th Cir.2003).
Pursuant to Elian v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.2004) (order), Petitioners' 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.