Case Name: Francisco Quezada TORRES and Maria Aguirre Cervantes, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-14
Citations: 232 F. App'x 668
Docket Number: No. 06-75733
Parties: Francisco Quezada TORRES and Maria Aguirre Cervantes, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 232
Pages: 668–669

Head Matter:
Francisco Quezada TORRES and Maria Aguirre Cervantes, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75733.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2007.
Filed May 14, 2007.
Francisco Quezada Torres, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Maria Dolores Aguirre Cervantes Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carol Federighi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Kathryn Moore, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This 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 a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying a motion to reopen its affirmance of an immigration judge's denial of petitioners' applications for cancellation of removal.
The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen filed more than eight months after the BIA's final order because the motion to reopen was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002).
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). 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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.