Opinion
No. 06-74833.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 16, 2007.
Arturo Gonzalez Aguirre, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A97-351-745, A97-351-746.
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.
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 Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen because petitioners did not offer sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for relief. See Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.