Case Name: Jorge MENDOZA-BARRAGAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-18
Citations: 270 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 07-73001
Parties: Jorge MENDOZA-BARRAGAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 270
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
Jorge MENDOZA-BARRAGAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73001.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2008 .
Filed March 18, 2008.
Alejandro Garcia, Esq., City of Commerce, CA, for Petitioners.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: T.G. NELSON, TASHIMA and BYBEE, 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 from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of a motion to reissue its August 24, 2006 decision.
Petitioners' second motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to the motion for summary disposition is denied. Petitioners request an extension only to obtain evidence from unrelated cases to submit to this court. Even if such evidence can be obtained, this court cannot consider it because the evidence was not first presented to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir.2004).
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).
The temporary stay of removal 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.