
    Ma. De Jesus Torres VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75335.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 4, 2007.
    Filed April 9, 2007.
    Ma. De Jesus Torres Villanueva, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    CAC-Distriet, 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, Carol Federighi, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Upon review of the record and petitioner’s petition and motion for stay, respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition 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). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s successive motion to reconsider. See 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.

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.
     