Opinion
No. 06-74505.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
July 27, 2007.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. A79-090-481.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The court has reviewed the petition for review and opening brief challenging the Board of Immigrations Appeals' ("BIA") September 8, 2006 decision denying petitioner's motion to reconsider. Respondent's motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so inYRSubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
To the extent petitioner seeks review of the BIA's April 24, 2006 decision dismissing petitioner's appeal, the court lacks jurisdiction over this petition for review because it was filed on September 18, 2006, more than 30 days after the Board of Immigration Appeals' April 24, 2006 decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Sheviakov v. INS, 237 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001); Narayan v. INS, 105 F.3d 1335 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the court sua sponte dismisses this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction to the extent it seeks review of the BIA's April 24, 2006 decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in PART and DISMISSED in PART.