Opinion
No. 07-73669.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed February 15, 2008.
Amy N. Gell, Gell Gell, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Rosanne M. Perry, 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. A79-561-113.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY and RYMER, 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 untimely motion to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions.
Respondent's unopposed 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). The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's motion to reopen. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Specifically, petitioner's new country condition evidence would not make a difference in the prior outcome of petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(H). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.