Case Name: Ma. Guadalupe Munoz MIRANDA, 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 443
Docket Number: No. 06-75772
Parties: Ma. Guadalupe Munoz MIRANDA, 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: 443–444

Head Matter:
Ma. Guadalupe Munoz MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75772.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2007.
Filed Oct. 18, 2007.
Ma. Guadalupe Munoz Miranda, Santa Ana, 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, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Kevin Conway, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, 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
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying petitioner's motion to reconsider.
We have reviewed the response to the court's June 12, 2007 order to show cause, and we conclude that 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). Specifically, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's motion to reconsider as numerically barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2); 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). To the extent that petitioner's response articulates a theory of ineffective assistance of counsel, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider such an unexhausted claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in underlying administrative proceedings).
Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
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.