
    Rodica PELCARU, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70971.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2007 .
    Filed Dec. 21, 2007.
    
      Jerry Shapiro, Law Offices of Fuire & Shapiro, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District, 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, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Kristin K. Edison, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, 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 “Request for Sua Sponte Reconsideration.”

Respondent’s 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). Specifically, the regulations provide that an alien may only file one motion to reopen and one motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), (c)(2). Here, a review of the record indicates that this was the third such motion filed by petitioner. Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion as numerically barred. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied in part.

Furthermore, to the extent that petitioner seeks review of the Agency’s denial of petitioner’s request for sua sponte reconsideration, this court lacks jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002). Therefore, 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 in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     