Case Name: Rey Tomas COLMENARES M.; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-22
Citations: 286 F. App'x 417
Docket Number: No. 07-74769
Parties: Rey Tomas COLMENARES M.; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 417–417

Head Matter:
Rey Tomas COLMENARES M.; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74769.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2008.
Filed July 22, 2008.
Rey Tomas Colmenares M., Escondido, 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, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, LEAVY and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioners' motion to reconsider an order denying cancellation of removal.
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) (stating standard). We review denials of motions to reconsider and reopen for abuse of discretion. Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). Here, a review of the record shows that the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the motion to reopen failed to set forth specific errors of law or fact in the BIA's prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.