Case Name: Ricardo Perez AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-09
Citations: 227 F. App'x 624
Docket Number: No. 06-75001
Parties: Ricardo Perez AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAlN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 624–625

Head Matter:
Ricardo Perez AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75001.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 2007 .
Filed April 9, 2007.
Ricardo Perez Aguilar, Costa Mesa, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the' District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kristin K. Edison, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAlN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, dated September 29, 2006, denying petitioner's second motion to reconsider as numerically barred pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).
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). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
Ml 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. To the extent petitioner requests a stay of voluntary departure, this court lacks jurisdiction to grant that request. 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.