Case Name: Serefino Rendon DIAZ; 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: 2008-02-15
Citations: 267 F. App'x 540
Docket Number: No. 07-73436
Parties: Serefino Rendon DIAZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 540–541

Head Matter:
Serefino Rendon DIAZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73436.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2008 .
Filed Feb. 15, 2008.
Serefino Rendon Diaz, Corona, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Eric W. Marsteller, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY and RYMER, 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 petitioners' motion to reopen.
Petitioners have paid the filing fee for this petition for review. Accordingly, the court's September 5, 2007 order is discharged.
We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). The regulations state that a motion to reopen removal proceedings must be filed no later than ninety days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). A review of the administrative record demonstrates that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely. Petitioners' final administrative order of removal was entered on June 17, 2005. Petitioners' motion to reopen was filed on June 4, 2007, more than ninety days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
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).
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).
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.