Case Name: Jose Manuel Castro CARRANZA; et al., Petitioners, 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 438
Docket Number: No. 07-71186
Parties: Jose Manuel Castro CARRANZA; et al., Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
Jose Manuel Castro CARRANZA; et al., Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71186.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2007 .
Filed Oct. 18, 2007.
Jose Manuel Castro Carranza, Norwalk, CA, pro se.
Ambrosia Hernandez Brito, Norwalk, CA, pro se.
Juan Pablo Castro, Norwalk, 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, OIL, 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
We have reviewed the response to the court's July 26, 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). The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners's second motion for reconsideration because only one motion for reconsideration is permitted. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2); Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.