Opinion
No. 06-74767.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed February 26, 2007.
Richard E. Oriakhi, Esq., Roman Singh, LLP, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Andrew C. Maclachlan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A76-671-003.
Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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). The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.