Case Name: Ernesto Arce RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-11
Citations: 197 F. App'x 634
Docket Number: No. 05-75749
Parties: Ernesto Arce RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 197
Pages: 634–634

Head Matter:
Ernesto Arce RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75749.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 7, 2006.
Filed Aug. 11, 2006.
Ernesto Arce Ramirez, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
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, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
On March 8, 2006, this court denied petitioner's motion for a stay of removal and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner was ordered to pay the filing fee and simultaneously show cause as to why this petition for review should not be summarily denied within 21 days. Petitioner paid the filing fee, but failed to respond to the court's order to show cause.
On May 16, 2006, the court sua sponte granted petitioner a 21 day extension of time to file a response to the order to show cause. On June 1, 2006, petitioner filed a document entitled "motion to show cause;" however, the motion fails to respond to the court's March 8, 2006 order and show cause as to why the petition for review should not be summarily denied.
Accordingly, this petition for review is denied because the questions raised by the petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (establishing time and numerical limits for motions to reopen); United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.