Case Name: Jose Cristino GOVEA-SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-08
Citations: 85 F. App'x 587
Docket Number: No. 02-71730; Agency No. A75-474-488
Parties: Jose Cristino GOVEA-SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
Jose Cristino GOVEA-SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71730.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Jan. 8, 2004.
John R. Acain, Law Offices of John R. Acorn, John R. Acorn, Law Offices of John R. Acorn, Irvine, 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, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Jamie M. Dowd, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Cristino Govea-Salazar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge's decision denying his application for suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Our recent decision in Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2003), forecloses Govea-Salazar's contention that he had a "settled expectation" that he could apply for suspension of deportation rather than cancellation of removal because he filed an asylum application prior to the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
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.