Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8646945
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Borel v. Mukasey
No. 8646945 · Decided January 10, 2008
No. 8646945·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
January 10, 2008
Citation
No. 8646945
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s motion to reconsider. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status. *579 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). Specifically, the BIA’s order denying petitioner’s motion to reconsider was not an abuse of discretion. See Larar-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968 , 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied. 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 provid *579 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s motion to reconsider.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s motion to reconsider.
02*579 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.