Opinion
No. 07-70105.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed July 27, 2007.
Mercedes Mendoza Flores, Bakersfield, 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, Siu P. Wong, 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. A95-193-316.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, 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 the Board of Immigration Appeals' December 15, 2006 decision denying petitioner's motion to reconsider.
We have reviewed the response to respondent's motion for summary affirmance. We conclude that summary disposition is appropriate 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 regulations provide that "a motion to reconsider a decision must be filed with the Board within 30 days after the mailing of the Board decision." See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reconsider filed on November 9, 2006, more than 30 days after the BIA's September 14, 2006 decision. Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary disposition is granted.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.