Case Name: Mauro Medina ARREOLA, 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 733
Docket Number: No. 06-75762
Parties: Mauro Medina ARREOLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 733–734

Head Matter:
Mauro Medina ARREOLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75762.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2007 .
Filed May 14, 2007.
Mauro Medina Arreola, Santa Ana, 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, Thomas Fatouros, DOJ-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
Upon review of the record and petitioner's filings, 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). The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen as untimely and for failure to state new facts or information. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002) (the court reviews the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
Petitioner's motion to stay voluntary departure is denied because the court lacks jurisdiction to grant a motion for a stay of voluntary departure filed after the depar ture period has expired. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2004). All other pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.