Omana v. Mukasey
This text of 301 F. App'x 615 (Omana v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen removal proceedings.
We review the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).
An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Because petitioners’ motion to reopen was their second motion to reopen filed, and petitioners have not contended that any exceptions to this time limit apply, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as number-barred. See id.
Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed 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).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
301 F. App'x 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omana-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.