
    
      This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    
    Maria Teresa ROMERO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73267.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 27, 2006.
    
    Filed Dec. 1, 2006.
    Maria Teresa Romero, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
    Servando Romero, Long Beach, 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, 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: LEAVY, GOULD and CLIFTON, 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). The certified administrative record indicates that petitioners have exceeded the numerical limit for motions to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners’ April 26, 2006 motion as numerically barred. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

Al 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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     