Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8621840
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Garcia v. Gonzales
No. 8621840 · Decided June 9, 2006
No. 8621840·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 9, 2006
Citation
No. 8621840
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** We have reviewed petitioner’s response to the order to show cause and motion for summary disposition. 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 because the motion to reopen was filed more than 90 days after the date of the order of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2); United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard); see also, Velezmoro v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir.2004), vacated by, 384 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir.2004) (order), and reversed by, 120 Fed.Appx. 185 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied. All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), 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 ** We have reviewed petitioner’s response to the order to show cause and motion for summary disposition.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** We have reviewed petitioner’s response to the order to show cause and motion for summary disposition.
02Respondent’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 because the motion to reopen was filed more than 90 days after the date
03Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard); see also, Velezmoro v.