Jose Arturo CARDENAS-RAYGOZA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent, 222 F. App'x 621

MEMORANDUM Respondent’s opposed 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 Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the late motion for reconsideration. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied. 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.