Case ID: f-appx_289/html/0263-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesus HIGAREDA-MENDOZA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70784.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2008.
    
    Filed Aug. 19, 2008.
    Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Daniel E. Goldman, Rebecca Hoffberg, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, LEAVY and KLEINFELD, 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 reconsider its denial of petitioners’ motion to reopen removal proceedings.

We review the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir .2008).

A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of fact or law in the prior BIA decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Because petitioners’ motion failed to identify errors of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision denying their motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners’ motion to reconsider. Accordingly, 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).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal 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.