Case Name: Francisco Carrillo HERRERA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-17
Citations: 270 F. App'x 542
Docket Number: No. 07-74622
Parties: Francisco Carrillo HERRERA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 270
Pages: 542–543

Head Matter:
Francisco Carrillo HERRERA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74622.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2008.
Filed March 17, 2008.
Francisco Carrillo Herrera, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
Ma. del Rosario Carrillo, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
Brenda Patricia Carrillo León, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
Brianne Whelan Cohen, Carol Federi-ghi, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: T.G. NELSON, TASHIMA and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioners' motion for in forma pauperis status is granted.
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioners' motion to reopen removal proceedings.
We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003).
The regulations provide that "a party may file only one motion to reopen.... " See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' third motion to reopen as numerically barred. See id,.; see also Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 894-97.
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).
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).
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.