Case ID: f-appx_174/html/0378-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel Figueroa AGUIRRE; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75697.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2006.
    
    Filed March 10, 2006.
    Daniel Figueroa Aguirre, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
    
      Maria Ignacia Lopez Solis, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
    Daniela Figueroa Lopez, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
    Dustin Figueroa Lopez, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
    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, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Melissa Neiman-Kelting, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

A review of the record indicates that the questions raised in this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument because petitioners’ motion to reopen was filed almost five months too late and the record indicates that petitioners did not exercise due diligence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc); United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

Accordingly, we summarily deny this petition for review.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

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.