Case Name: Juan ORTEGA-BALTAZAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-18
Citations: 283 F. App'x 439
Docket Number: No. 08-70036
Parties: Juan ORTEGA-BALTAZAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 439–440

Head Matter:
Juan ORTEGA-BALTAZAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70036.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 9, 2008.
Filed June 18, 2008.
Juan Ortega-Baltazar, Santa Ana, 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, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and M. SMITH, 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.
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).
Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen based on his United States citizen child's recent enrollment in a special program for excelled students. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
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 and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), 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.