Case Name: Luisa HERNANDEZ-BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-25
Citations: 202 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 06-71200
Parties: Luisa HERNANDEZ-BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
Luisa HERNANDEZ-BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71200.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 18, 2006.
Filed Sept. 25, 2006.
Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Anthony P. Nicastro, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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 Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's second motion to reopen based on a possible change in immigration law proposed by the President of the United States because the motion to reopen was numerically barred and did not meet any of the regulatory exceptions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002) (the court reviews the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
Petitioner's motion to stay voluntary departure is denied because the court lacks jurisdiction to grant a motion for a stay of voluntary departure filed after the departure period has expired. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.2004). 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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.