Case Name: Juan Manuel Hernandez VALENCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-17
Citations: 203 F. App'x 115
Docket Number: No. 05-72567
Parties: Juan Manuel Hernandez VALENCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 115–116

Head Matter:
Juan Manuel Hernandez VALENCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72567.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 11, 2006.
Filed Oct. 17, 2006.
Martin Avila Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John C. Cunningham, Esq., Ann Carroll Varnon, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, 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 opposed 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. Hoo-ton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Petitioner's opening brief has not demonstrated that the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reconsider. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that court reviews BIA denials of reconsideration under abuse of discretion standard and must uphold BIA's decision unless the decision is irrational, arbitrary, or contrary to law). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.