Opinion
No. 06-75089.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 16, 2007.
Ernesto Arce Ramirez, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
District, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A75-743-297.
Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen.
Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely petitioner's motion to reconsider, filed ten months after the entry of the final administrative order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) (stating time limits for filing motions to reconsider); Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.