Case Name: Maria De La Lus Barrientos MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-27
Citations: 235 F. App'x 493
Docket Number: No. 06-75394
Parties: Maria De La Lus Barrientos MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 493–494

Head Matter:
Maria De La Lus Barrientos MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75394.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 23, 2007.
Filed July 27, 2007.
Maria De La Lus Barrientos Martinez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
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, Lyle D. Jentzer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, 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 the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order de nying petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings.
The regulations provide that a party "may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings----" See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's second motion to reopen, filed one year late. See id.; Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004).
Accordingly, this court has determined that summary denial of the petitioner for review is appropriate because the questions raised by this petition are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.