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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)
Susano Arvizo Ramirez, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Jose Ivan Arvizo Flores, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Marco Antonio Arvizo Flores, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Maria Del Rocio Arvizo Flores, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Kristin A. Cabral, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A95-302-175, A95-302-176, A95-102-177, A95-102-178.
Before: T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, 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.
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); see also Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144-45 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
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.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.