Case Name: Mari SILOGYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-11
Citations: 197 F. App'x 635
Docket Number: No. 05-73716
Parties: Mari SILOGYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 197
Pages: 635–636

Head Matter:
Mari SILOGYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73716.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 7, 2006.
Filed Aug. 11, 2006.
Boris Baladjanian, Valencia, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
We have reviewed petitioner's opening brief. Petitioner's counsel failed to discuss any of the merits of this petition for review and did not respond to the motion for summary disposition. Petitioner's counsel raises no challenge to the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision dated May 26, 2005, which denied petitioner's motion to reopen. 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). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
To the extent petitioner challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision of February 22, 2005, which denied her asylum appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner's arguments because petitioner did not file a timely petition for review of that decision. See Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir.2005).
DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
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.