Case Name: Carlos Alvarez REYES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-24
Citations: 239 F. App'x 390
Docket Number: No. 07-70918
Parties: Carlos Alvarez REYES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 239
Pages: 390–390

Head Matter:
Carlos Alvarez REYES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70918.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2007.
Filed Aug. 24, 2007.
Carlos Alvarez Reyes, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
District 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, John S. Hogan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This 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.
Petitioners challenge a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying their third motion to reconsider. We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 895 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners' third motion to reconsider as numerically barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (setting restrictions for motion to reconsider).
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). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c), 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.