
    Joel CASTRO-GAXIOLA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71229.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2004.
    
    Decided March 24, 2004.
    
      Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Attorney at Law, Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Executive Office of Immigration Review, Office of Immigration Judge, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Timothy P. Mcllmail, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joel Castro-Gaxiola, whose true name is Joel Castro-Valdez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings de novo, Lopez-Urenda v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

We review the IJ’s opinion as the “final agency determination” for purposes of this appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)(iii); Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). Because the IJ’s interpretation and application of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard found in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) was well within the broad bounds of the statutory language, it does not violate due process. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir.2003). Once we determine that the IJ’s interpretation falls within this broad range authorized by the statutory language, our inquiry ends. See id. at 1005.

To the extent Petitioner contends that the BIA’s streamlining procedures violate due process, his challenge is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).

The Clerk is directed to stay the mandate pending the resolution of Desta v. Ashcroft, No. 03-70477 and further order of this Court.

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.
     