Opinion
No. 07-70299.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed July 27, 2007.
Gagik Avoyan, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.
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, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Lindsay L. Chichester, 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 No. A79-532-361.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judges, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
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 from a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming the denial of the application for asylum filed by petitioner's former wife, for which petitioner was a derivative beneficiary. The Immigration Judge found the application abandoned because, after six continuances over a four year period, the petitioner did not submit his fingerprints as required. The record does not support petitioner's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, nor that any such assistance caused petitioner's failure to submit the required fingerprints.
A review of the record and petitioner's response to the order to show cause indicates 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). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.