
    Jeny Satia NEGORO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75027.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 4, 2007.
    Filed April 9, 2007.
    Albert C. Lum, Esq., Law Offices of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, 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

Respondent’s opposed 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) (stating standard). The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners’ motions to reconsider and reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) & (c)(2). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     