Case Name: Lidia Estela ARCE-HIDALGO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-03
Citations: 187 F. App'x 764
Docket Number: No. 05-76745
Parties: Lidia Estela ARCE-HIDALGO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 187
Pages: 764–765

Head Matter:
Lidia Estela ARCE-HIDALGO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76745.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2006.
Decided July 3, 2006.
Lidia Estela Arce-Hidalgo, Ontario, 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, Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, 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 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 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that petitioner had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant rescission of an in absentia removal order where although petitioner did not personally receive the notice of hearing, it was mailed to petitioner's last known address and receipt was acknowledged); United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of deportation 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.