Case Name: Elvia JAIME, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-16
Citations: 224 F. App'x 681
Docket Number: No. 06-75238
Parties: Elvia JAIME, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 681–681

Head Matter:
Elvia JAIME, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75238.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 16, 2007.
Elvia Jaime, Anaheim, 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, Brianne Whelan, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This 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 petitioner's motion to reconsider.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reconsider as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (stating that motions to reconsider shall be filed within 30 days after the BIA decision). Petitioner's motion was filed over eight months after the last order of the BIA. 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).
The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.