Case Name: Roger Wilfredo DE LEON ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-23
Citations: 96 F. App'x 475
Docket Number: No. 02-71165; Agency No. A72-686-418
Parties: Roger Wilfredo DE LEON ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 475–476

Head Matter:
Roger Wilfredo DE LEON ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71165.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 2004.
Decided April 23, 2004.
Suzanne B. Friedman, Law Offices of Suzanne B. Friedman, 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, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Roger Wilfredo De Leon Ortiz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming, without opinion, an immigration judge's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
De Leon Ortiz's contentions that the BIA's streamlining regulations violate his right to due process and are void for vagueness are foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-51 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the BIA's streamlining procedure does not violate an alien's due process rights).
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.