Case Name: Guillermo GODOY-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-25
Citations: 88 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 02-71942; Agency No. A76-368-498
Parties: Guillermo GODOY-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 264–264

Head Matter:
Guillermo GODOY-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71942.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
Guillermo Godoy Diaz, pro se, Norwalk, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, 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, Michael P. Lindemann, Lisa M. Arnold, Attorney, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, we deny Godoy-Diaz’ request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Guillermo Godoy-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo. Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.
The IJ properly found Godoy-Diaz ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had no qualifying relative as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). See id. at 1145.
Godoy-Diaz' contention that the BIA's summary affirmance procedure violates due process is foreclosed by our decision in Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003).
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.