Case Name: Shantanu NARANG; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-24
Citations: 90 F. App'x 992
Docket Number: No. 02-72662
Parties: Shantanu NARANG; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 90
Pages: 992–993

Head Matter:
Shantanu NARANG; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-72662.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2004.
Decided March 24, 2004.
Suzanne B. Friedman, Esq., Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Leslie McKay, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before B. FLETCHER, LEAVY and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chandar Kaur Narang and her son Shantanu Narang, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7) without opinion an immigration judge's denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
Petitioners' contentions that the BIA's streamlining regulations violate their rights to due process and are void for vagueness are foreclosed by Falcon Carriche 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.