Case Name: Oralia Salinas LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-18
Citations: 270 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 07-71393
Parties: Oralia Salinas LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 270
Pages: 614–616

Head Matter:
Oralia Salinas LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71393.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2008.
Filed March 18, 2008.
Oralia Salinas Lopez, San Gabriel, CA, pro se.
Karen Y. Stewart, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: T.G. NELSON, TASHIMA and BYBEE, 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 from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of a motion to reopen.
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 party may file only one motion to reopen," and that the motion "must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened." See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen, filed more than one year after the final administrative decision was rendered. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner failed to alleged changed circumstances in Mexico that would exempt her from the time limits for filing a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate. The motion to reinstate voluntary departure, filed after the departure period had expired, is denied. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.