Case Name: Francisco Alberto Chavez BONILLA, Petitioner, 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: 208 F. App'x 608
Docket Number: No. 06-73284
Parties: Francisco Alberto Chavez BONILLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 208
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Francisco Alberto Chavez BONILLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73284.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 27, 2006.
Filed Dec. 1, 2006.
Francisco Alberto Chavez Bonilla, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office 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 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, 698 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam). A motion to reopen must be filed no later than ninety days after the date on which the final administrative decision is rendered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2.(c)(2). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
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.