Case Name: Maribel Ramirez BALDERRAMA, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-10
Citations: 250 F. App'x 789
Docket Number: No. 07-72295
Parties: Maribel Ramirez BALDERRAMA, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 250
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
Maribel Ramirez BALDERRAMA, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72295.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 1, 2007.
Filed Oct. 10, 2007.
Maribel Ramirez Balderrama, Santa Ana, 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, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., Kathryn Moore, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of a motion to reconsider the BIA's affirmation of an immigration judge's order denying petitioner's application for cancellation of removal.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in construing petitioner's motion for remand as a motion to reconsider and denying the motion, which was petitioner's third motion to reconsider, as numerically barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004).
Accordingly, 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) (per curiam) (stating standard). 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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.