Case Name: Nancy Ramirez MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-26
Citations: 95 F. App'x 905
Docket Number: No. 02-72773; Agency No. A75-309-148
Parties: Nancy Ramirez MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 905–905

Head Matter:
Nancy Ramirez MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-72773.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 2004.
Decided April 26, 2004.
Walter Rafael Pineda, Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, 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, Ernesto H, Molina, Jr., Kurt B. Larson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nancy Ramirez Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") summarily affirming, without opinion, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7), an immigration judge's denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. The petitioner's sole contention is that the BIA's decision "without opinion" does not comport with due process. This contention is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-51 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the BIA does not violate due process by affirming pursuant to its streamlining regulations an immigration judge's decision without issuing an opinion).
Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741(9th Cir.2004) petitioner's motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the motion for stay of removal was granted, or continued based on the government's filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the 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.