Opinion
No. 08-72279.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 12, 2008.
Luciano Lopez, pro se.
Jem C. Sponzo, Carol Federighi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, 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.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A073-S45-309.
Before: TROTT, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioner's motion to reconsider.
We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002).
The regulations provide that a party may file only one motion to reconsider a BIA decision, and that the motion must be filed within .30 days after the mailing of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reconsider because it was filed on February 29, 2008, more than 30 days after the BIA's July 2, 2007 decision. Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary disposition of this petition for review is granted because the questions raised by this petition are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(e) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.