
    Jose Ramon RUIZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71611.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
    
    Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
    Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Jamie M. Dowd, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Ramon Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s orders denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal and denying his motion to terminate removal proceedings and initiate deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction to review due process challenges, and we review de novo. Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.

Petitioner’s first contention, that the BIA’s decision “without opinion” violates due process, is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioner’s second contention, that he had a “settled expectation” that the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”) would apply to him because he applied for asylum prior to the effective date of the permanent rules of the IIRIRA, is foreclosed by Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 2003).

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.
     