
    Delgadina Rogelia Gil MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73535.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 11, 2008.
    
    Filed Feb. 15, 2008.
    Delgadina Rogelia Gil Martinez, Santa Ana, 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, John C. Cunningham, Esq., Holly M. Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s motion to reopen.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). The regulations state that a motion to reopen removal proceedings must be filed no later than ninety 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). A review of the administrative record demonstrates that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely. Petitioner’s final administrative order of removal was entered on March 15, 2007. Petitioner’s motion to reopen was filed on July 2, 2007, more than ninety days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

To the extent the motion is construed as a motion to reconsider, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding the motion to be untimely. A motion to reconsider must be filed with the BIA within 30 days of the mailing of the BIA’s final decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). As noted above, the motion was filed more than ninety days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered.

Accordingly, 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).

To the extent that petitioner seeks review of the BIA’s denial of her request to sua sponte reopen proceedings, this court lacks jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002). The petition is dismissed in part.

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 in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     