Case Name: Alejandro Ramirez ALVARADO; Maria Eusebia Lilia Alonso Treja, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-01
Citations: 208 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 06-73575
Parties: Alejandro Ramirez ALVARADO; Maria Eusebia Lilia Alonso Treja, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 208
Pages: 604–605

Head Matter:
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Alejandro Ramirez ALVARADO; Maria Eusebia Lilia Alonso Treja, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73575.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 27, 2006.
Filed Dec. 1, 2006.
Alejandro Ramirez Alvarado, El Monte, CA, pro se.
Maria Eusebia Lilia Alonso Treja, El Monte, 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: LEAVY, GOULD 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
This is a petition for review from the denial of petitioners' motion to reopen re moval proceedings.
The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' second motion to reopen 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) (BIA's denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.