Case Name: Juan Manuel Godinez CADENA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-10
Citations: 291 F. App'x 856
Docket Number: No. 05-77228
Parties: Juan Manuel Godinez CADENA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 291
Pages: 856–857

Head Matter:
Juan Manuel Godinez CADENA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-77228.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 10, 2008.
Juan Manuel Godinez Cadena, Los Angeles, 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, Larry P. Cote, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. 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
Juan Manuel Godinez Cadena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision ordering him removed and denying his request to administratively close proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition.
The BIA correctly affirmed the IJ's denial of petitioner's request for administrative closure where the government declined to consent to the closure of the case. See In Re Gutierrez-Lopez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 479, 480 (BIA 1996) ("A case may not be administratively closed if opposed by either of the parties").
Petitioner's requests for decision are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.