Case Name: Simon Cirineo Abrajan HERNANDEZ and Maria Teresa Abrajan, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-18
Citations: 251 F. App'x 421
Docket Number: No. 07-70859
Parties: Simon Cirineo Abrajan HERNANDEZ and Maria Teresa Abrajan, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
Simon Cirineo Abrajan HERNANDEZ and Maria Teresa Abrajan, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70859.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2007.
Filed Oct. 18, 2007.
Simon Cirineo Abrajan Hernandez, El Monte, CA, pro se.
Maria Teresa Abrajan, El Monte, 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, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., Oil, Richard M. Evans, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Jus tice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying petitioners' request to reissue the BIA's July 22, 2004 decision affirming the immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal. After review of the filings and the record in this case, this court finds the petition for review is appropriate for summary disposition. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners' motion to reissue its prior decision. Cf. Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal remains in effect pending 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.