Case ID: f-appx_260/html/0957-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bernardo Medina FLORES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71961.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2007 .
    Filed Dec. 21, 2007.
    
      Bernardo Medina Flores, 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, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, 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.

Upon review of the record and petitioner’s late response to this court’s July 31, 2007 order to show cause, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in construing petitioner’s motion to reconsider as a motion to reopen because petitioner asserted that he was eligible to apply for new status. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 792 (9th Cir.2005). Further, the BIA did not err in denying the motion as numerically barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Accordingly, this petition for review is summarily denied because the questions raised by the petition are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

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