Case Name: Juana Teresa Vasquez CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-15
Citations: 95 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 02-73878; Agency No. A72-120-948
Parties: Juana Teresa Vasquez CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 228–228

Head Matter:
Juana Teresa Vasquez CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-73878.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 2004.
Decided April 15, 2004.
Suzanne B. Friedman, Attorney at Law, 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, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Paul Fiorino, Michael T. Dougherty, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juana Teresa Vasquez Campos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming, without opinion, an immigration judge's denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Vasquez Campos' contentions that the BIA's streamlining regulations violate her right to due process and are void for vagueness are foreclosed by Falcon Garriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-51 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the BIA's streamlining procedure does not violate an alien's due process rights).
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.