Case Name: Leticia Astudillo MORENO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-14
Citations: 231 F. App'x 757
Docket Number: No. 06-75619
Parties: Leticia Astudillo MORENO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 757–758

Head Matter:
Leticia Astudillo MORENO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75619.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2007 .
Filed May 14, 2007.
Leticia Astudillo Moreno, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Luz Anais Astudillo, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
CAC-District, 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, James A. Hunolt, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Kathryn Moore, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioners' motion to reopen or reconsider the denial of their applications for cancellation of removal.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in construing petitioners' motion as a motion to reconsider and denying the motion (petitioners' second) 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). Thus, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.