Case Name: Jose Antonio Rivas BARRIOS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-18
Citations: 289 F. App'x 985
Docket Number: No. 08-72056
Parties: Jose Antonio Rivas BARRIOS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 289
Pages: 985–986

Head Matter:
Jose Antonio Rivas BARRIOS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72056.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2008.
Filed Aug. 18, 2008.
Jose Antonio Rivas Barrios, Fontana, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Corey Leigh Farrell, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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 Respondents.
Before: CANBY, LEAVY and KLEINFELD, 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 from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of a second motion to reopen an earlier denial of cancellation of removal. We review this decision for an abuse of discretion. See Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582 (9th Cir.2006) (citing Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2004)).
We have reviewed petitioner's response to this court's June 2, 2008 order, and we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. Petitioner's motion was number-barred, and the petitioner has not provided evidence to support an exception to the numerical limit on motions to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Accordingly, this petition for review is summarily denied 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 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.