GONZALEZ-VARELA v. MUKASEY, 263 Fed.Appx. 573 (9th Cir. 2008)

Juan GONZALEZ-VARELA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-73099.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted January 7, 2008[*] .
Filed January 10, 2008.

[*] The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Juan Gonzalez-Varela, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., John W. Blakeley, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A71-821-246.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

[**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Petitioner Juan Gonzalez-Varela seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

Page 574

(“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen as untimely.

A review of the record reflects that the BIA entered its final decision on March 28, 2003, and accordingly any motion to reopen or to reconsider would have been due on or before April 28, 2003. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b). In this case, petitioner filed his motion to reopen on April 5, 2007.

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). 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.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

jdjungle