Case ID: f-appx_270/html/0530-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlos Rodriquez CEJA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74695.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2008.
    
    Filed March 14, 2008.
    
      Carlos Rodriquez Ceja, Tacoma, WA, pro se.
    Shelley R. Goad, Terri Leon-Benner, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, District Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel/Ice Department of Homeland Security, Portland, OR, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: T.G. NELSON, TASHIMA and BYBEE, 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”) denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.

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 BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion to reopen because petitioner did not present any new evidence in his motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 599 (9th Cir.2006).

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