Case ID: f-appx_267/html/0510-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nicanor Guillermo Flores SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73238.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 7, 2008.
    
    Filed Jan. 10, 2008.
    J. Jack Artz, Esq., Law Office of J. Jack Artz, Norwalk, CA, for Petitioner.
    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, James A. Hunolt, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GRABER, 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 adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioner Nicanor Guillermo Flores Sanchez’s application for adjustment of status.

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). Petitioner failed to meet his burden to establish eligibility for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) because his visa petition was filed after April 30, 2001. See 8 C.F.R § 1245.10(a)(l)(i). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

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.