Case Name: Rodolfo GARCIA-TORIBIO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-19
Citations: 107 F. App'x 133
Docket Number: Nos. 02-72255; Agency Nos. A75-252-081, A72-402-781
Parties: Rodolfo GARCIA-TORIBIO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 107
Pages: 133–133

Head Matter:
Rodolfo GARCIA-TORIBIO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 02-72255.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
Decided Aug. 19, 2004.
Nadeem H. Makada, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., David Dauenheimer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rodolfo and Gabriela Garcia-Toribio, both natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an immigration judge's denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of deportation, and suspension of deportation. Because the transitional rules apply, Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners' contention, that the BIA's streamlining regulations violate their right to due process and are void for vagueness, is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-52 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the BIA's streamlining procedure does not violate an alien's due process rights).
Pursuant to Elian v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.2004) (order), petitioners' voluntary departure period will begin to run upon issuance of this court's 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.