U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2007

Merino v. Gonzales

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 14, 2007 · Callahan, Gould, Kozinski

231 F. App'x 749

Counsel

Felipe Osorio Merino, Santa Ana, CA, pro se., Teodora Osorio, Santa Ana, CA, pro se., CAC-District, 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, Carol Federighi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Respondent’s opposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the *750questions 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.