
    Elias Medina ARRIOLA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71503.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 11, 2008.
    
    Filed Aug. 18, 2008.
    Elias Medina Arriola, Carmen Medina, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners.
    District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
    Before: CANBY, LEAVY and KLEINFELD, 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’ second motion to reopen removal proceedings as barred by numerical limitations.

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 removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion to reopen as barred by numerical limitations. See id.

Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed 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).

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