Case Name: Amalia DURAN, Petitioner, 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 429
Docket Number: No. 07-71424
Parties: Amalia DURAN, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
Amalia DURAN, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71424.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2007.
Filed Oct. 18, 2007.
Amalia Duran, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ada E. Bosque, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Torts Branch/Civil Division, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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
Petitioner's 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 petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings.
The regulations provide, with certain exceptions that do not apply to this case, 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 petitioner's fifth motion to reopen as numerically barred. See id.
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 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.