Case Name: Ramiro BARAJAS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-26
Citations: 111 F. App'x 941
Docket Number: No. 04-70036
Parties: Ramiro BARAJAS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 941–941

Head Matter:
Ramiro BARAJAS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-70036.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2004.
Decided Oct. 26, 2004.
Ramiro Barajas, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ramiro Barajas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal.
Barajas contends that the "stop-time" provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l), which cuts off the requisite period of continuous physical presence upon service of the notice to appear, violates the Equal Protection Clause. This contention is foreclosed by Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517-18 (9th Cir.2001) (observing that the statute does not authorize post-charge accumulation of time toward the physical presence requirement and rejecting equal protection and due process challenges to stop-time rule).
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.