Summary
finding a substantial relationship where one of the parties to the contract had its principal place of business in the state identified in the choice-of-law clause
Summary of this case from Certain Underwriters at Lloyds Subscribing to Policy No. M-20304 v. Expeditors Int'l of Wash.Opinion
Argued and Submitted April 15, 2004.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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. INS. No. A77-421-542.
Allan A. Samson, Esq., 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, Julia K. Doig, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Keith Bernstein, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, KOZINSKI and THOMAS, 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.
The IJ did not err in rejecting petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal because substantial evidence supports the IJ's finding that petitioner was not credible. Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000).
Nor did the BIA's decision to streamline petitioner's case violate due process, Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003), or contravene 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7).
Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because petitioner did not raise it below. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
PETITION DENIED.