
    Jose Israel Moreno HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72173.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 7, 2007 .
    Filed May 14, 2007.
    Jose Israel Moreno Hernandez, Henderson, NY, 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, Janice K. Redfern, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This 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 removal proceedings. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in construing the motion to remand as a motion to reopen proceedings. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir.2003); cf. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(4).

The regulations provide, with certain exceptions the BIA correctly found did not apply here, that a party “may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings ... and that motion must be filed no later than 90 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). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen, filed more than one year after the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s appeal. See id.

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). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     