Case Name: Julia Mateo AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-26
Citations: 222 F. App'x 616
Docket Number: No. 06-74773
Parties: Julia Mateo AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 616–616

Head Matter:
Julia Mateo AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74773.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
Filed Feb. 26, 2007.
Julia Mateo Aguilar, Huntington Beach, 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, Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, 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 denying petitioner's motion to reconsider.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's fourth motion to reconsider as numerically barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (stating numerical limits on motions to reconsider); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir.2003).
Accordingly, 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).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.