Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8621849
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Hong Zhang v. Gonzales
No. 8621849 · Decided June 9, 2006
No. 8621849·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. 8621849
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** To the extent petitioner is requesting that we review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ June 21, 2005 decision, we lack jurisdiction to do so because this petition for review was not filed within 30 days of that decision. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review in part is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1); Sheviakov v. INS, 237 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.2001); Narayan v. INS, 105 F.3d 1335 (9th Cir.1997) (order). Respondent’s motion for summary disposition in part is granted because the remaining question raised by this petition for review is 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 for summary disposition). DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 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 ** To the extent petitioner is requesting that we review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ June 21, 2005 decision, we lack jurisdiction to do so because this petition for review was not filed within 30 days of that decision.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** To the extent petitioner is requesting that we review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ June 21, 2005 decision, we lack jurisdiction to do so because this petition for review was not filed within 30 days of that decision.
02Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review in part is granted.
03Respondent’s motion for summary disposition in part is granted because the remaining question raised by this petition for review is so insubstantial as not to require further argument.
04Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard for summary disposition).
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** To the extent petitioner is requesting that we review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ June 21, 2005 decision, we lack jurisdiction to do so because this petition for review was not filed within 30 days of that decision.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Hong Zhang v. Gonzales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 9, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8621849 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.