Case Name: Eva Maria PEREZ REYNADA, Petitioner, 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 707
Docket Number: No. 06-71981
Parties: Eva Maria PEREZ REYNADA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 707–708

Head Matter:
Eva Maria PEREZ REYNADA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71981.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2007.
Filed May 14, 2007.
Eva Maria Perez Reynada, San Diego, 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, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., 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
This is a petition for review of a denial of a motion to reopen before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in 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). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's untimely motion to reopen where petitioner filed her motion to reopen almost one and a half years after the BIA's final order of removal. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.8d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA's denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Motions to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the final order of removal is entered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss is construed as a motion for summary denial of this petition for review. So construed, the motion is granted.
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.