Case ID: f-appx_231/html/0745-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesus Jimenez CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74423.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 7, 2007.
    
    Filed May 14, 2007.
    Teresa Salazar, Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    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: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This 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 petitioner’s motion to reconsider.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any errors of fact or law in the BIA’s June 8, 2006 order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1230 n. 5 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

Moreover, as petitioner acknowledges, this petition for review repeats contentions that were raised and rejected in petition No. 06-73423. No exception to the law of the case doctrine applies here. See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991).

Accordingly, this petition for review is denied, and 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.

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