Case ID: f-appx_267/html/0549-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Natalia KHOURY; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73340.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2008.
    
    Filed Feb. 15, 2008.
    Ravit Rae Halperin, Esq., Ask Law Group, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioners.
    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, Ada E. Bosque, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen.

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). A party may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed not later than ninety days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely when it was filed over three years after the deadline for filing motions to reopen. The final administrative decision in petitioners’ case was issued February 13, 2003. Petitioners have not demonstrated that one of the regulatory exceptions to the time requirement for motions to reopen applies here. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).

The mandate in Khoury v. Gonzales, No. 03-71097, contained a clerical error indicating that the petition for review as to petitioners Natalia and Rania Khoury, Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] and [ AXX-XXXXXX ], respectively, was granted and remanded. In fact, the petition for review as to petitioners Natalia and Rania Khoury was denied. We nunc pro tunc correct the mandate in Khoury v. Gonzales, No. 03-71097, to state that the petition for review as to petitioners Natalia and Rania Khoury, Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] and [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], respectively, 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.