Case Name: Victoriano Sosa PEDROZA; et al., Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-18
Citations: 251 F. App'x 423
Docket Number: No. 07-70038
Parties: Victoriano Sosa PEDROZA; et al., Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 423–424

Head Matter:
Victoriano Sosa PEDROZA; et al., Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70038.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2007.
Filed Oct. 18, 2007.
Victoriano Sosa Pedroza, La Puente, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This 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 dismissing petitioners' appeal as moot because the appeal appeared to have been abandoned.
We have reviewed the record and petitioners' response to the court's June 12, 2007 order to show cause, and we conclude that 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).
Petitioners' response to the order to show cause does not raise any legal or constitutional claims regarding the BIA's dismissal of petitioners' appeal as moot. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004). Petitioners have not rebutted the BIA's conclusion that they had abandoned their appeal. See Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 196 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that where the petitioner was on notice that if the petitioner failed to file a brief after indicating that he would do so, the BIA could reasonably assume that petitioner had abandoned the appeal and exercise its power to summarily dismiss the appeal).
Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.