Case Name: Fausto AGUILAR SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-13
Citations: 120 F. App'x 108
Docket Number: No. 02-71918
Parties: Fausto AGUILAR SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, HALL, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
Fausto AGUILAR SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71918.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2005.
Decided Jan. 13, 2005.
Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., OIL, Robbin K. Blaya, Esq., Greg D. Mack, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, HALL, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Fausto Aguilar Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Aguilar Sandoval's only contention, a challenge to the BIA's streamlining procedure, is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003).
Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), and Salvador-Calleros v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.2004), Aguilar Sandoval's motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the motion for stay of removal was continued based on the government's filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, as of the filing of the motion for stay of removal, and this stay will expire upon issuance of the 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.