Case Name: Jose Trinidad CARRASCO AVITIA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-17
Citations: 115 F. App'x 413
Docket Number: No. 03-70164
Parties: Jose Trinidad CARRASCO AVITIA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 413–414

Head Matter:
Jose Trinidad CARRASCO AVITIA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-70164.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 17, 2004.
Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq, Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Linda S. Wernery, Esq., William C. Minick, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, ALARCON, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Trinidad Carrasco Avitia, and his wife and daughter, natives and citizens of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance without opinion of an Immigration Judge's order denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal and pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal.
Carrasco contends that the BIA's summary affirmance does not comport with due process requirements. This contention is foreclosed by our decision in Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-52 (9th Cir.2003) (holding the BIA's streamlining procedure does not violate an alien's due process rights). Carrasco also contends that no asylum case could ever properly be streamlined because asylum cases invariably involve a "novel fact situation." We reject this contention because not every fact-based case is "novel in the eyes of the law." See id. at 852.
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.