Case Name: Rahdi Njoto WAHJUDI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-15
Citations: 278 F. App'x 754
Docket Number: No. 08-70353
Parties: Rahdi Njoto WAHJUDI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 278
Pages: 754–754

Head Matter:
Rahdi Njoto WAHJUDI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70353.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2008.
Filed Decided May 15, 2008.
Sarah J.M. Jones, Law Offices of Sarah J.M. Jones, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, 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 a previous denial of an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 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 conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioner's motion was untimely, as well as number-barred, and the petitioner has not provided additional evidence to support an exception to the numerical or time limits for motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) and (3). Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary affirmance 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).
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.