Case Name: Severiano HERRERA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-10
Citations: 267 F. App'x 505
Docket Number: No. 07-73658
Parties: Severiano HERRERA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 505–506

Head Matter:
Severiano HERRERA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73658.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 7, 2008 .
Filed Jan. 10, 2008.
Severiano Herrera, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
CAC-Distriet 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, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing petitioner's appeal as untimely.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
The regulations state that a notice of appeal must be filed with the BIA within 30 calendar days of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") oral decision or the mailing of a written decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b), (c). Here, the IJ's decision was rendered on December 14, 2006. The Notice of Appeal was filed with the BIA on August 3, 2007. Because petitioner's notice of appeal was filed past the 30-day deadline, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal on that ground.
The questions raised by this petition 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). Accordingly, respondent's unopposed motion for summary denial is granted.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).