Case Name: Juvenal RAMIREZ-ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-18
Citations: 218 F. App'x 676
Docket Number: No. 06-72675
Parties: Juvenal RAMIREZ-ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 676–677

Head Matter:
Juvenal RAMIREZ-ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72675.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 16, 2007 .
Filed Jan. 18, 2007.
Juvenal Ramirez-Alvarez, Sherman Oaks, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ and BYBEE, 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 from the denial of petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings.
The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen as untimely and failing to comply with the requirements for a motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA's denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, respondent's 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.