
    Jose ARREOLA AVILA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72968.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 1, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 15, 2008.
    Jose Arreola Avila, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
    Elizabeth Torres, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
    Ada E. Bosque, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of a motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen based on its finding that documents submitted by petitioners failed to establish a prima facie claim under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed 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). 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.

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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     