
    Felipe De Jesus RAMIREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75230.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 4, 2007.
    Filed April 9, 2007.
    Felipe De Jesus Ramirez, Banning, CA, pro se.
    Ivan Ramirez Chavez, Banning, CA, pro se.
    Dulce Arisay Ramirez Chavez, Banning, CA, pro se.
    Adriana Marlen Ramirez-Chavez, Banning, CA, pro se.
    Margarita Ramirez, Banning, CA, 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, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER 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 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). The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion when it construed petitioners’ motion to reopen as a motion to reconsider and denied petitioners’ motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)-(c). Construed as a motion to reconsider, the motion was both numerically barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), and untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate. The temporary stay of voluntary departure, filed after the expiration of the voluntary departure period, is denied. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2004).

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