Case Name: J. Benito GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-09
Citations: 183 F. App'x 681
Docket Number: No. 06-70097
Parties: J. Benito GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 183
Pages: 681–682

Head Matter:
J. Benito GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70097.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2006.
Filed June 9, 2006.
Reynold E. Finnegan, Esq., Finnegan & Diba A Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC — District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON and KLEINFELD, 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 response to the order to show cause and motion for summary disposition. Respondent's motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument because the motion to reopen was filed more than 90 days after the date of the order of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard); see also, Velezmoro v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir.2004), vacated by, 384 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir.2004) (order), and reversed by, 120 Fed.Appx. 185 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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.