
    Filemon HERNANDEZ-ARAUJO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74621.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2006.
    
    Filed March 10, 2006.
    Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esq., Carol Federi-chi, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, T.G. NELSON and BEA, 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 unopposed motion to dismiss this petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction is granted. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review alien’s claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals should have reopened a case under its sua sponte authority).

Respondent’s motion for summary disposition in part is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hoo-ton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied in part. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (stating numerical and time limitations on motions to reopen).

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 DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 
      
       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.
     