Case Name: Martin Alvarado GUZMAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-27
Citations: 235 F. App'x 507
Docket Number: No. 07-70366
Parties: Martin Alvarado GUZMAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
Martin Alvarado GUZMAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70366.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted on July 23, 2007.
Filed July 27, 2007.
Martin Alvarado Guzman, Ontario, CA, pro se.
Amparo Alvarado, Ontario, CA, pro se.
Brenda Elizabeth Alvarado Arguelles, Ontario, 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, Manuel A. Palau, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, 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 the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioners' motion to reopen.
Respondent's motion for summary disposition in part is granted. The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Thus, 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). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied in part.
Furthermore, this court lacks jurisdiction over this petition for review to the extent that this petition seeks review of the BIA's discretionary denial of petitioners' request to sua sponte reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss in part this petition for lack of jurisdiction is granted.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.