From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Higareda-Mendoza v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 19, 2008
289 F. App'x 263 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 08-70784.

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 19, 2008.

Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Daniel E. Goldman, Rebecca Hoffberg, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, 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, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order, of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A95-313-794, A95-313-795.

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' motion to reconsider its denial of petitioners' motion to reopen removal proceedings.

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

A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of fact or law in the prior BIA decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Because petitioners' motion failed to identify errors of fact or law in the BIA's prior decision denying their motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners' motion to reconsider. Accordingly, respondent's 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

Higareda-Mendoza v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 19, 2008
289 F. App'x 263 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Higareda-Mendoza v. Mukasey

Case Details

Full title:Jesus HIGAREDA-MENDOZA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 19, 2008

Citations

289 F. App'x 263 (9th Cir. 2008)