
    Juan F. SANDOVAL-MALDONADO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70033.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 14, 2004.
    
    Decided Nov. 1, 2004.
    Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Robbin K. Blaya, Esq., Earle B. Wilson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan F. Sandoval-Maldonado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance without opinion of an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Petitioner’s challenges to the BIA’s use of the streamlining procedure in his asylum case are without merit. See Garcia-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 1066, 1078-79 (9th Cir.2004); Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 854-55 (9th Cir.2003).

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 749-50 (9th Cir.2004), petitioner’s motion for a stay of removal included a timely request for a 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 court’s mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       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.
     