Case Name: Emma Alicia VILLALOBOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-18
Citations: 76 F. App'x 150
Docket Number: No. 02-72335; Agency No. A74-802-372
Parties: Emma Alicia VILLALOBOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 76
Pages: 150–150

Head Matter:
Emma Alicia VILLALOBOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-72335.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.
Decided Sept. 18, 2003.
Michael Franquinha, Law Office of Michael Franquinha, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Emma Alicia Villalobos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge's order of removal. Villalobos contends that the immigration judge erred in ruling that her administrative voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) in lieu of deportation constituted a meaningful interruption of her continuous physical presence in the United States thereby rendering her ineligible for suspension of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a). This contention is foreclosed by Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961(9th Cir.2003) (Per Curiam).
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.