Zavala Pulido v. Gonzales

Good Law
125 F. App'x 881
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 11, 2005No. 02-72034; Agency Nos. A75-261-588, A75-261-589California285 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Rufina Zavala Pulido and Everardo Cervantes, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s denial of their application for asylum and withhold *882 ing of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We have jurisdiction to review due process challenges, and review de novo. Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.

Petitioners’ first contention that the BIA’s summary affirmance process violates due process is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ contention that the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”) apply to them because they applied for asylum before the effective date of the permanent rules of the IIRIRA and that it was a denial of due process to place them in removal proceedings is foreclosed by Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that an alien does not have a settled expectation of being in deportation proceedings if the INS filed the charging document…

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.