Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Page 379.
Daniel Figueroa Aguirre, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Maria Ignacia Lopez Solis, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Daniela Figueroa Lopez, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Dustin Figueroa Lopez, Anaheim, 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, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Melissa Neiman-Kelting, 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. A95-306-072, A95-306-073, A95-306-074, A95-306-075.
Before: BEEZER, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
A review of the record indicates that the questions raised in this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument because petitioners' motion to reopen was filed almost five months too late and the record indicates that petitioners did not exercise due diligence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc); United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
Accordingly, we summarily deny this petition for review.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
DENIED.