Case Name: Jose Luis IBARRA-VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-27
Citations: 247 F. App'x 47
Docket Number: No. 06-75688
Parties: Jose Luis IBARRA-VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 247
Pages: 47–48

Head Matter:
Jose Luis IBARRA-VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75688.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 23, 2007.
Filed July 27, 2007.
Jose Luis Ibarra-Vasquez, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
CAC-District, 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, Dalin Holyoak, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
We have reviewed petitioner's response to the court's April 10, 2007 order. We conclude that summary disposition is appropriate 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 regulations provide that "a party may file only one motion to reopen," and that the motion "must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened." See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's third motion to reopen, filed more than one year after the final administrative decision was rendered. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
To the extent petitioner challenges the BIA's decision declining to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and reconsider, we lack jurisdiction. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.