
    Francisco Hernandez OCAMPO; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73171.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2008 .
    Filed Feb. 15, 2008.
    Francisco Hernandez Ocampo, West Covina, CA, pro se.
    Virginia Santander Hernandez, West Covina, CA, pro se.
    Jose Paz Hernandez Santander, West Covina, CA, pro se.
    Luis Alberto Hernandez Santander, . West Covina, CA, pro se.
    Virginia Hernandez Santander, West Covina, CA, pro se.
    CAC-Distriet 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, Julie M. Iversen, 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 petitioners’ motion to reopen agency proceedings.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.

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). Specifically, the regulations provide that a motion to reopen must be filed with the BIA within ninety days after the mailing of the BIA’s decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Here, the motion was filed 761 days after mailing of the BIA’s February 2, 2005 decision. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners’ untimely motion to reconsider. 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.

To the extent that petitioners seek review of the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen sua sponte, 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 for lack of jurisdiction.

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.
     