Case Name: Jesus Gallegos RAMIREZ; Irma Guadalupe Gallegos, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-18
Citations: 251 F. App'x 418
Docket Number: No. 07-71368
Parties: Jesus Gallegos RAMIREZ; Irma Guadalupe Gallegos, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 418–420

Head Matter:
Jesus Gallegos RAMIREZ; Irma Guadalupe Gallegos, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71368.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2007.
Filed Oct. 18, 2007.
Jesus Gallegos Ramirez, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Irma Guadalupe Gallegos, Santa Ana, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Terri Leon Benner, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, 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") decision denying petitioners' motion to reopen immigration proceedings.
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). Specifically, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Furthermore, even if petitioners' motion was construed as a motion to reconsider, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because the BIA lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion "seeking] reconsideration of a decision denying a previous motion to reconsider." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). 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.