Case ID: f-appx_283/html/0461-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sukhwinder Singh MANN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70014.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 9, 2008.
    
    Filed June 18, 2008.
    Angela D. Warren, Esq., Warren Law Firm, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner challenges a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen.

We review the denial of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). Regulations provide that an alien may file only one motion to reopen proceedings, with certain exceptions not pertinent here. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s second motion to reopen as numerically barred.

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).

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.

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