Case Name: Maria del Carmen Gomez AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-22
Citations: 274 F. App'x 598
Docket Number: No. 07-72881
Parties: Maria del Carmen Gomez AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 598–599

Head Matter:
Maria del Carmen Gomez AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72881.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 15, 2008.
Filed April 22, 2008.
Maria del Carmen Gomez Aguilar, pro se.
Oil, Terri Jane Scadron, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The 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") order denying petitioner Maria del Carmen Gomez Aguilar's second motion to reopen.
The BIA's denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). The regulations state that a petitioner may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). The motion must also demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869-70 (9th Cir.2003).
There is substantial evidence to support the BIA's decision denying petitioner's motion to reopen. A review of the administrative record demonstrates that this is petitioner's second motion to reopen. In addition, because petitioner's application for cancellation of removal was denied on physical presence grounds, not because of a lack of hardship to her qualifying relatives, the motion did not demonstrate pri-ma facie eligibility for relief. 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).
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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.