Case Name: Angelica SALGADO-SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-22
Citations: 286 F. App'x 410
Docket Number: No. 08-70670
Parties: Angelica SALGADO-SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 410–411

Head Matter:
Angelica SALGADO-SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70670.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2008.
Filed July 22, 2008.
Angelica Salgado-Sandoval, pro se.
Jem C. Sponzo, Carol Federighi, Esq., Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation Washington, DC, 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 Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, LEAVY and IKUTA, 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 of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioner's second motion to reopen.
Respondent's 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). The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's second untimely motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal 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.