Case Name: Abraham Gomez PINEDA; 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: 2007-02-26
Citations: 222 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 06-75185
Parties: Abraham Gomez PINEDA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
Abraham Gomez PINEDA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75185.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
Filed Feb. 26, 2007.
Abraham Gomez Pineda, Placentia, 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 Dis trict Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Siu P. Wong, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, 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 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) (stating standard). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' second motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (permitting one motion to reopen before BIA). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) 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.