From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arriola v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 253
Aug 18, 2008
289 F. App'x 252 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 08-71503.

Submitted August 11, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed August 18, 2008.

Elias Medina Arriola, Carmen Medina, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners.

District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A79-525-585, A79-525-586.

Before: CANBY, LEAVY and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication arid 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 petitioners' second motion to reopen removal proceedings as barred by numerical limitations.

We review the BIA's ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008).

An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' second motion to reopen as barred by numerical limitations. See id.

Accordingly, 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).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Arriola v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 253
Aug 18, 2008
289 F. App'x 252 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Arriola v. Mukasey

Case Details

Full title:Elias Medina ARRIOLA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 253

Date published: Aug 18, 2008

Citations

289 F. App'x 252 (9th Cir. 2008)