Case Name: Rakib AHAMED, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-19
Citations: 255 F. App'x 148
Docket Number: No. 07-72445
Parties: Rakib AHAMED, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 255
Pages: 148–148

Head Matter:
Rakib AHAMED, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72445.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007.
Filed Nov. 19, 2007.
Rakib Ahamed, Alhambra, CA, pro se.
CAC-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, Carol Federighi, Esq., Jason Xavier Hamilton, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rakib Ahamed petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his second motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen because the motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred, and did not meet any of the regulatory exceptions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002).
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).
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.