Case Name: Juana ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-09
Citations: 227 F. App'x 623
Docket Number: No. 06-74602
Parties: Juana ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 623–623

Head Matter:
Juana ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74602.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 2007 .
Filed April 9, 2007.
Juana Estrada, Anaheim, 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, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Paul Fiorino, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision, dated August 30, 2006, denying petitioner's fifth motion to reopen as numerically barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
The regulations provide that "a party may file only one motion to reopen.... " See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's fifth motion to reopen. See id., see also Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioner has failed to identify any issue sufficiently substantial to warrant further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.