Case Name: Juan GONZALEZ-VARELA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-10
Citations: 263 F. App'x 573
Docket Number: No. 07-73099
Parties: Juan GONZALEZ-VARELA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 263
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
Juan GONZALEZ-VARELA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73099.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 7, 2008 .
Filed Jan. 10, 2008.
Juan Gonzalez-Varela, 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, Emily A. Radford, Esq., John W. Blakeley, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Juan Gonzalez-Varela seeks review of the Board of Immigration Ap peals' ("BIA") decision denying his motion to reopen as untimely.
A review of the record reflects that the BIA entered its final decision on March 28, 2003, and accordingly any motion to reopen or to reconsider would have been due on or before April 28, 2003. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b). In this case, petitioner filed his motion to reopen on April 5, 2007.
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). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) 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.