Lateef

MEMORANDUM **

Muazzam Mohammad Lateef petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance without opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1 (a)(7) of an Immigration Judge’s removal order. On appeal, Lateef claims that: (1) the Immigration Judge erred by denying Lateefs request to withdraw his plea to the Notice to Appear; (2) the Immigration Judge erred by admitting into evidence several exhibits over Lateefs objections; (3) Lateef is entitled to derivative United States citizenship since former Section 321(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (a) (repealed 2000), violates due process and equal protection; and (4) the INS’s streamlining provisions violate due process.

Substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge’s disposition of the first two of these claims. See Verar-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d 1222, 1230 (9th Cir. 2003). The Immigration Judge denied Lateefs motion to withdraw his admissions since Lateef was represented by counsel when he made the admissions. It is well-settled tfiat “[pjetitioners are generally bound by the conduct of their attorneys, including admissions made by them, absent egregious circumstances.”…