Case Name: Surjit SINGH, Petitioner, 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 625
Docket Number: No. 07-73949
Parties: Surjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 270
Pages: 625–626

Head Matter:
Surjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73949.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2008.
Filed March 18, 2008.
Kathleen S. Koh, Law Office of Kathleen Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Aimee J. Frederickson, 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 of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioner's motion to reopen proceedings.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen because the motion to reopen was untimely and did not meet any of the regulatory exceptions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002).
Accordingly, respondent's unopposed 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).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) 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.