Case Name: Arturo Gonzalez AGUIRRE; 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: 2007-03-16
Citations: 224 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 06-74833
Parties: Arturo Gonzalez AGUIRRE; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
Arturo Gonzalez AGUIRRE; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74833.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007 .
Filed March 16, 2007.
Arturo Gonzalez Aguirre, Santa Maria, 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, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, 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 ("BIA") did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen because petitioners did not offer sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for relief. See Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096,1099 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.