Case ID: f-appx_303/html/0492-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arturo GONZALEZ AGUIRRE; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73068.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 1, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 15, 2008.
    Arturo Gonzalez Aguirre, Petra Gonzalez, Santa Maria, CA, for Petitioners.
    OIL, Paul Cygnarowicz, Trial, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, 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 GOODWIN, CLIFTON and BEA, 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 for administrative closure.

The BIA issued a final order of removal on March 3, 2006. To the extent the motion for administrative closure can be construed as a motion to reopen, the BIA correctly determined it is time-barred, as it was filed almost two years after the issuance of the final order. Further, because petitioners filed a previous motion to reopen, which the BIA denied on March 26, 2006, the BIA also correctly determined the motion is number-barred. Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted in part 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).

To the extent petitioners seek to challenge the BIA’s decision denying the motion for administrative closure, the court lacks jurisdiction to review this decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate. The motion for stay of voluntary departure, filed after the departure period had expired, is denied. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2004).

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