Case Name: Benito Perez LOPEZ; Maria Remedios Rodriguez; Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-10
Citations: 267 F. App'x 506
Docket Number: No. 07-73618
Parties: Benito Perez LOPEZ; Maria Remedios Rodriguez; Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 506–507

Head Matter:
Benito Perez LOPEZ; Maria Remedios Rodriguez; Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73618.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 7, 2008 .
Filed Jan. 10, 2008.
Maria Remedios Rodriguez, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Benito Perez Lopez, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
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, Stuart S. Nickum, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Benito Perez Lopez and Maria Remedios Rodriguez petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying their motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred.
The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen because it was Benito Perez Lopez's second motion to reopen, and was untimely as to Maria Remedios Rodriguez. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002).
Accordingly, respondent's unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted in part 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).
To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA's decision not to exercise its discretionary authority to reopen sua sponte, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider that claim. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1158-59 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed in part.
Ml 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 in part and DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.