
    Veronica LOPEZ-DE PAXTOR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73753.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 1, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 10, 2008.
    Reynold E. Finnegan, Esquir, Finnegan & Diba A Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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

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

We review the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).

An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2). Because this is petitioner’s second motion to reopen, filed well beyond the 90-day deadline, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen. See id.

Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted in part 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).

As to petitioner’s request to the BIA for sua sponte reopening, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny sua sponte reopening of petitioner’s case. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the 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.
     