Case Name: Margarita FLORES-OTERO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-21
Citations: 214 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: No. 06-73557
Parties: Margarita FLORES-OTERO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, McKEOWN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 672–673

Head Matter:
Margarita FLORES-OTERO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73557.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 18, 2006.
Filed Dec. 21, 2006.
Margarita Flores-Otero, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Iseliz Flores Otero, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Maria Magdalena Flores Otero, Anaheim, 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, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, McKEOWN and FISHER, 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 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). The motion to reopen was not filed within 90 days of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.