Case ID: f-appx_197/html/0535-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jorawar Singh JASWAL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71776.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Aug. 7, 2006.
    
    Aug. 11, 2006.
    Jorawar Singh Jaswal, Watsonville, CA, pro se.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, John S. Hogan, Esq., San Francisco, CA, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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).

The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s second motion to reopen filed more than 23 months after the BIA’s final order because the motion to reopen was untimely and numerically barred, and did not meet any of the regulatory exceptions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion).

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.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.