Case Name: Iskuhi GHAZARYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-19
Citations: 289 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 08-70968
Parties: Iskuhi GHAZARYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 289
Pages: 256–257

Head Matter:
Iskuhi GHAZARYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70968.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2008.
Filed Aug. 19, 2008.
Garbis N. Etmekjian, Esquire, Law Offices of Garbis N. Etmekjian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
John W. Blakeley, Esquire, Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, LEAVY and KLEINFELD, 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 petitioner's motion to reconsider.
We review the BIA's ruling on a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).
We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider because petitioner's motion was untimely by more than two years. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2(b)(2).
Accordingly, 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) (stating standard).
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.