Case Name: Noe Lobato BARRAGAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-09
Citations: 318 F. App'x 512
Docket Number: No. 08-74584
Parties: Noe Lobato BARRAGAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 318
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
Noe Lobato BARRAGAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74584.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 23, 2009.
Filed March 9, 2009.
Noe Lobato Barragan, Huntington Park, CA, pro se.
OIL, Gregory Michael Kelch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, 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: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and GOULD, 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 of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings.
We review the BIA's ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).
An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Petitioner's final order of removal was entered on October 29, 2007. Because petitioner's motion to reopen was filed on May 14, 2008, beyond the 90-day deadline, and petitioner has not contended that any exceptions to this time limit apply, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's untimely motion to reopen. See id.; see also Dela Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 949 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that "the pendency of a petition for review of an order of removal does not toll the statutory time limit for the filing of a motion to reopen with the BIA").
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).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal 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.