Case Name: Fabiola Antunez SALGADO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-14
Citations: 231 F. App'x 751
Docket Number: No. 06-75059
Parties: Fabiola Antunez SALGADO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 751–751

Head Matter:
Fabiola Antunez SALGADO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75059.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2007 .
Filed May 14, 2007.
Fabiola Antunez Salgado, Perris, 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, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Regina Byrd, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Upon review of the record and petitioner's response to the order to show cause, this petition for review is summarily denied because the questions raised 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 Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's successive motion to reconsider as untimely and numerically barred, after previously denying five prior motions to reconsider or reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), (c)(2); Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
Petitioner's motion to stay voluntary departure is denied because the court lacks jurisdiction to grant a motion for a stay of voluntary departure filed after the departure period has expired. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2004). All other pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.