No. 07-70191.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted June 4, 2007.[*]
Filed June 12, 2007.
Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
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
Page 193
Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carol Federighi, Esq., Mona Maria Yousif, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A74-794-906.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM[**]
Respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition in part 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 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 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s second motion to reopen, filed more than two years 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 in part.
Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss in part is granted. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision denying petitioner’s request to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, this petition for review is dismissed in part.
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 in part, DISMISSED inpart.