Case Name: Saul MARTINEZ-MORALES; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-28
Citations: 311 F. App'x 33
Docket Number: No. 08-73061
Parties: Saul MARTINEZ-MORALES; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 311
Pages: 33–33

Head Matter:
Saul MARTINEZ-MORALES; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73061.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2009.
Filed Jan. 28, 2009.
Saul Martinez-Morales, San Jose, CA, pro se.
OIL, Barry J. Pettinato, Esquire, Monica Antoun, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, 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 denying petitioners' second motion to reopen removal proceedings.
Petitioners' motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
A review of the record and petitioners' response to the order to show cause demonstrates that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners' second motion to reopen as numerically barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (providing for the filing of one motion to reopen); Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008) (BIA's ruling on motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary affirmance is granted because the questions raised in this petition 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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.