Opinion
No. 08-70402.
The panel unanimously finds this ease suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed July 24, 2008.
Reyes Chavez Sanchez, pro se.
Rosa Chavez, pro se.
Dalin Holyoak, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, 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. A99-046-967, A99-046-968.
Before: SCHROEDER, LEAVY and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
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 of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioners' motion to reopen to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
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 State* v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
Petitioners' motion to reinstate voluntary departure is denied as unnecessary because petitioners' timely motion to reopen before the BIA automatically tolled their voluntary departure period. See Barroso v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir. 2005); Zazueta-Carrillo v. Ash-croft, 322 F.3d 1166, 1174 (9th Cir. 2003).
Ail 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.