Case Name: Ildefonso Mancinas RUIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., 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 515
Docket Number: No. 08-74265
Parties: Ildefonso Mancinas RUIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 318
Pages: 515–516

Head Matter:
Ildefonso Mancinas RUIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74265.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 23, 2009.
Filed March 9, 2009.
Ildefonso Mancinas Ruiz, Moreno Valley, CA, pro se.
Oil, DOJ-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 de nying petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings.
We review the BIA's ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See 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. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Petitioner's motion to reopen was filed beyond the 90-day deadline. In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner did not establish an exception to the time limit by presenting material evidence of changed country conditions that was not available and could not have been discovered and presented at the previous proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), 1003.23(b)(4)(i).
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) (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 provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.