Paniagua-Vigil

Paniagua-Vigil v. Ashcroft

Good Law
95 F. App'x 901
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 26, 2004No. 02-72097; Agency Nos. A75-252-149, A75-252-150, A75-252-151California267 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Paniagua-Vigil, his wife Esperanza Lopez-Hernandez and their son Antonio de Jesus Lepes-Lopez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal, and their motion to terminate removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo purely legal questions and claims of due process violations, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition.

The petitioners’ contention that the BIA’s streamlining decision fails to comport with the requirements of due process is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).

*902 The petitioners’ contention, that because they filed their application for asylum before the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act took effect, they had a settled expectation that denial of their application would result in deportation proceedings, is foreclosed by Vasquez-Zavala, 324 F.3d at 1108 .

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004) petitioners’ motion for stay of removal included a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.