Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A70-864-067.
Page 486.
Frank P. Sprouls, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, 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, Linda S. Wernery, Esq., Mark C. Walters, Esq., Margaret Perry, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HALL, O'SCANNLAIN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
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.
Lesbia Elizabet Alvarez Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming without opinion an immigration judge's denial of her application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Alvarez Martinez contends that the streamlining regulations violate due process and circumvent judicial review. This contention is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-52 (9th Cir.2003).
Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, No. 03-70477, petitioner's motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the motion for stay of removal was 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.
DENIED.