Case Name: Maria Eva SANCHEZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-21
Citations: 260 F. App'x 952
Docket Number: No. 07-72572
Parties: Maria Eva SANCHEZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 260
Pages: 952–953

Head Matter:
Maria Eva SANCHEZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72572.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2007.
Filed Dec. 21, 2007.
Maria Eva Sanchez-Martinez, Fall-brook, 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, Carol Federighi, Esq., Brianne Whelan, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, 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's motion to reopen as untimely.
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). The regulations provide that a motion to reopen must be filed with the BIA within ninety days after the mailing of the BIA's decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Here, petitioner's motion was filed more than two years after mailing of the BIA's decision. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's untimely motion to reconsider. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
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.