Case ID: f-appx_231/html/0732-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mario Vinalay CASTREJON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75765.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 7, 2007.
    
    Filed May 14, 2007.
    Mario Vinalay Castrejon, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Torts Branch/Civil Division, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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 from a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing petitioner’s appeal to the BIA as untimely. An appeal must be filed with the BIA within 30 days after the date the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) oral decision is rendered or the Immigration Judge’s written decision is mailed to petitioner. See 8 C.F.R. § 1008.38(b). Here, petitioner was personally served with the Id’s opinion at the hearing on March 22, 2005, and informed of his right to appeal. He did not file his notice of appeal with the BIA until April 29, 2005.

Accordingly, we grant respondent’s motion to summarily deny this petition for review 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 confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

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