Case Name: Leonides RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-14
Citations: 301 F. App'x 630
Docket Number: No. 08-72651
Parties: Leonides RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 630–631

Head Matter:
Leonides RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72651.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 3, 2008.
Filed Nov. 14, 2008.
Leonides Rodriguez, Huntington Beach, CA, pro se.
Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Justin Robert Markel, Trial U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, 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: TROTT, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The 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. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
This a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") May 30, 2008 decision denying petitioner Leonides Rodriguez's motion to reconsider.
We have reviewed the record and petitioner's response to the court's July 3, 2008 order to show cause. We conclude that summary disposition is appropriate 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 reconsider any given decision, and such motion "must be filed with the Board within 30 days after the mailing of the Board decision." See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's second motion, filed more than four years after the BIA's February 2, 2004 decision affirming the denial of cancellation of removal, as numerically and time barred. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004) (BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.
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.