Case Name: Nefresandra Molina BARRIGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-09
Citations: 227 F. App'x 629
Docket Number: No. 06-75236
Parties: Nefresandra Molina BARRIGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 629–629

Head Matter:
Nefresandra Molina BARRIGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75236.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 2007 .
Filed April 9, 2007.
Zaheer Zaidi, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.
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: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This 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 reconsider.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reconsider because petitioner's notice of appeal to the BIA was not filed — or scheduled to be delivered — within 30 calendar days of the Immigration Judge's oral decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38; Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005).
Accordingly, respondent's unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this peti-' tion 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 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.