Case Name: Filadelfo Miguel VICTORIANO; 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: 2008-01-10
Citations: 263 F. App'x 580
Docket Number: No. 07-72627
Parties: Filadelfo Miguel VICTORIANO; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 263
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
Filadelfo Miguel VICTORIANO; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72627.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 7, 2008.
Filed Jan. 10, 2008.
Filadelfo Miguel Victoriano, San Pedro, CA, pro se.
CAC-District, 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, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, 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
This is a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of a motion to reopen.
The court has received respondent's opposed motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court construes the motion as one also for summary denial of the petition for review. So construed, respondent's opposed 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). The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003). 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.