Case Name: Hector Manuel ECHEVERRIA-GRAMAJO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-23
Citations: 285 F. App'x 508
Docket Number: No. 08-70587
Parties: Hector Manuel ECHEVERRIA-GRAMAJO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, LEAVY and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 508–509

Head Matter:
Hector Manuel ECHEVERRIA-GRAMAJO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70587.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2008.
Filed July 23, 2008.
Hector Manuel Eeheverria-Gramajo, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, LEAVY and IKUTA, 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 from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing petitioner's appeal from the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of a motion to reconsider.
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) (stating standard). Because petitioner disavowed the factual basis for the IJ's decision in his appeal brief to the BIA, the BIA did not err in determining that it need not review the IJ's decision. Nor did the BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the new arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or in declining to reopen or remand. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioner failed to present previously unavailable evidence warranting reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal 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.