Case Name: Israel Naranjo OSORIO, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, 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 790
Docket Number: No. 07-71914
Parties: Israel Naranjo OSORIO, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 250
Pages: 790–791

Head Matter:
Israel Naranjo OSORIO, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71914.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 1, 2007.
Filed Oct. 10, 2007.
Israel Naranjo Osorio, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
CAC-Distriet, 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, Siu P. Wong, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, 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
Israel Naranjo Osorio petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying his motion to reconsider as untimely.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider as untimely. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004) (BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Regulations provide that a motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days after the date of the BIA's decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). The BIA issued its last order on December 19, 2005. Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider on April 4, 2007, thus, exceeding the 30 day time limit.
Accordingly, 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).
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.