
    Manuel Muz CAAL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70089.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
    
    Decided Dec. 10, 2004.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Attorney at Law, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James R. Grimes, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Muz Caal, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“U”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review due process challenges de novo. Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

Petitioner’s contention that he did not receive a full and fair hearing is unavailing, as he failed to demonstrate that any alleged due process violation affected the outcome of the proceedings. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000).

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the BIA’s failure to articulate reasons for its decision does not violate due process. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions also lack merit.

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 may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     