Case Name: Armando Bognot MALIWAT, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-23
Citations: 274 F. App'x 606
Docket Number: No. 07-74759
Parties: Armando Bognot MALIWAT, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 606–607

Head Matter:
Armando Bognot MALIWAT, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74759.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 15, 2008.
Filed April 23, 2008.
John S. Rogers, Esq., John S. Rogers & Associates, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
NVL-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, 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: B. FLETCHER, FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review for abuse of discretion. See Iturribarria v. INS, 821 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's third motion to reopen because petitioner's failure to file timely the motion to reopen before the expiration of his voluntary departure period rendered him statutorily ineligible for the relief he sought. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d); de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 763 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss, construed as a 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).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.