Case Name: Felix Nunez CEBREROS; 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: 2006-12-01
Citations: 209 F. App'x 634
Docket Number: No. 06-72919
Parties: Felix Nunez CEBREROS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 209
Pages: 634–635

Head Matter:
Felix Nunez CEBREROS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72919.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 27, 2006.
Filed Dec. 01, 2006.
Felix Nunez Cebreros, Sylmar, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Melissa Neiman-Kelting, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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) 06-72919 (per curiam). The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge ("IJ") without opinion, therefore, we review the decision of the IJ as we would that of the BIA. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 925 (9th Cir.2004). We conclude that the IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying the petitioners' motion to reopen. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.