Case Name: Enrique GARCIA-MONTANO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-18
Citations: 289 F. App'x 255
Docket Number: No. 08-71013
Parties: Enrique GARCIA-MONTANO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 289
Pages: 255–256

Head Matter:
Enrique GARCIA-MONTANO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71013.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2008.
Filed Aug. 18, 2008.
Enrique Garcia-Montano, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, LEAVY and KLEINFELD, 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") order denying petitioner's request for administrative closure.
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) (stating standard). First, administrative closure is not available after entry of a final order of removal. Second, to the extent that petitioner's motion could be construed as a motion to reopen removal proceedings, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner's third motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.