Case Name: Rosalva PALMA-GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-14
Citations: 231 F. App'x 760
Docket Number: No. 06-75447
Parties: Rosalva PALMA-GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 760–761

Head Matter:
Rosalva PALMA-GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75447.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2007 .
Filed May 14, 2007.
Rosalva Palma-Guerra, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
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, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Esq., 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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). The agency correctly determined that petitioner failed to demonstrate changed country conditions that she could not have presented earlier and failed to demonstrate that she is within any category of person likely to be a target of persecution in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Indeed, a review of the record indicates that petitioner is a native and citizen of Guatemala, not of Mexico. Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.