Case Name: Jorge Serrato CARANDIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-14
Citations: 231 F. App'x 758
Docket Number: No. 06-75624
Parties: Jorge Serrato CARANDIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 758–759

Head Matter:
Jorge Serrato CARANDIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75624.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2007.
Filed May 14, 2007.
Jorge Serrato Carandia, Azusa, CA, pro se.
CAC-Distriet 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, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, 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 of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioner's motion to reopen.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by construing petitioner's motion to reopen as a motion to reconsider, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)-(c), or by denying petitioner's second motion to reconsider; a second motion to reconsider, absent certain exceptions that do not apply to this case, is prohibited under the regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended on other grounds by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). Moreover, the motion would have been petitioner's second motion to reopen, which, absent certain exceptions that do not apply to this case, is also prohibited under the regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
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).
The motion for stay of voluntary departure, filed after the departure period had expired, is denied. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2004).
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.