Case Name: Gregorio Ramos ARRIOLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-19
Citations: 255 F. App'x 156
Docket Number: No. 07-72260
Parties: Gregorio Ramos ARRIOLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 255
Pages: 156–156

Head Matter:
Gregorio Ramos ARRIOLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72260.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007.
Filed Nov. 19, 2007.
Gregorio Ramos Arriola, La Habra, 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: McKEOWN, TALLMAN and CLIFTON, 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") denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings.
Petitioner submitted evidence that his daughter was experiencing psychological difficulty due to her parents' decision to separate from their relationship. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by finding that this evidence would not change the result in this case and thus that the case did not warrant reopening. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, the petition is summarily denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), 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.