
    Gurmeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70764, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 14, 2004.
    
    Decided May 14, 2004.
    Mohinder Singh, Walnut Creek, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Susan K. Houser, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before WALLACE, KOZINSKI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The IJ did not err in rejecting petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding of removal because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that petitioner was not credible. Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 937-38 (9th Cir.2000).

The IJ’s questioning of petitioner during his hearing did not violate petitioner’s right to due process because such questioning is permissible and petitioner has not demonstrated prejudice. AntonioCruz v. INS, 147 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir.1998).

Nor did the BIA’s decision to streamline petitioner’s case violate due process, Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003), or contravene 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7). .

PETITION 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.
     