Case Name: Mohammed ASHRAF, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-19
Citations: 283 F. App'x 462
Docket Number: No. 08-70821
Parties: Mohammed ASHRAF, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 462–463

Head Matter:
Mohammed ASHRAF, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70821.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 9, 2008.
Filed June 19, 2008.
Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and M. SMITH, 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") denial of a motion for reconsideration.
We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
The regulations provide that a motion for reconsideration "must be filed with the Board within 30 days after the mailing of the Board decision.... " See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration as untimely because petitioner filed the motion for reconsideration of the BIA's March 3, 2005 decision on November 30, 2007. See id. Accordingly, 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 United States v. Hooton., 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
The motion for stay of voluntary departure, filed after the departure period had expired, is denied. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2004).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) 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.