Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8626451
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Cebreros v. Gonzales
No. 8626451 · Decided December 1, 2006
No. 8626451·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
December 1, 2006
Citation
No. 8626451
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Respondent’s 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) 06-72919 (per curiam). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) without opinion, therefore, we review the decision of the IJ as we would that of the BIA. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 925 (9th Cir.2004). We conclude that the IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to reopen. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied. 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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.
03The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) without opinion, therefore, we review the decision of the IJ as we would that of the BIA.
04We conclude that the IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to reopen.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Cebreros v. Gonzales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on December 1, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8626451 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.