Case Name: Manuel Gregorio PLACIDO; 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: 2007-05-14
Citations: 231 F. App'x 759
Docket Number: No. 06-75629
Parties: Manuel Gregorio PLACIDO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 759–759

Head Matter:
Manuel Gregorio PLACIDO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75629.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2007 .
Filed May 14, 2007.
Manuel Gregorio Placido, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Margarita Placido, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Celia Placido, Santa Ana, 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, Richard M. Evans, Esq., David E. Dauenheimer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, 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 did not abuse its discretion in construing petitioners' motion to reconsider as a motion to reopen and denying it as numerically barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The motion for stay of voluntary departure, filed after the departure period had expired, is denied. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.