Case Name: Erik Bobadilla GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-14
Citations: 231 F. App'x 737
Docket Number: No. 06-75680
Parties: Erik Bobadilla GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 737–738

Head Matter:
Erik Bobadilla GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75680.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2007 .
Filed May 14, 2007.
Erik Bobadilla Garcia, El Monte, 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, Julie M. Iversen, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This 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 a denial of a motion to reopen before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
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). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture because petitioner failed to make a prima facie case for such relief. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 965-66 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
The motion for stay of voluntary departure, filed after the departure period had expired, is denied. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2004). All other pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.