Case Name: Filiberto Bello SUAREZ, Petitioner, 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 415
Docket Number: No. 07-71629
Parties: Filiberto Bello SUAREZ, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
Filiberto Bello SUAREZ, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71629.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2007.
Filed Oct. 18, 2007.
Filiberto Bello Suarez, Santa Barbara, CA, pro se.
CAC-District, 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, Peter H. Matson, U.S. Department of Justice, 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
Respondent's motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction in part is granted. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of a motion to reopen "where the question presented is essentially the same discretionary issue originally decided.").
Respondent's motion for summary disposition in part 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 denying as untimely and insufficient petitioner's motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2(b)(2); 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 confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.