Case Name: Virginia Correa GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-10
Citations: 250 F. App'x 800
Docket Number: No. 07-71655
Parties: Virginia Correa GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 250
Pages: 800–801

Head Matter:
Virginia Correa GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71655.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 1, 2007.
Filed Oct. 10, 2007.
Fernando Romo, Law Offices of Avila & Romo, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
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, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Jennifer L. Light-body, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, BERZON and IKUTA, 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 from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of a motion to reconsider a previous denial of a motion to reopen. We review this decision for an abuse of discretion. See Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582 (9th Cir.2006) (citing Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2004)). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration because petitioner failed to demonstrate factual or legal errors warranting reconsideration.
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) (stating standard).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.