Case Name: Suruj NARAYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-10
Citations: 174 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: Nos. 05-72597, 05-74558
Parties: Suruj NARAYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
Suruj NARAYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 05-72597, 05-74558.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2006.
Filed March 10, 2006.
Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Anthony C. Payne, Esq., 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
A review of the record and petitioner's response to the court's order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in these consolidated petitions for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument because petitioner's motion to reopen was filed more than three years too late and the record indicates that petitioner did not exercise due diligence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(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 these consolidated petitions 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.