
    Fernando Garcia SOTO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72029.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Oct. 6, 2008.
    
    Filed Oct. 17, 2008.
    Fernando Garcia Soto, Huntington Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents.
    Before: WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, 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 petitioner’s motion for administrative closure.

Respondent’s unopposed motion for summaiy 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). First, administrative closure is not available after entry of a final order of removal. See Matter of Lopez-Barrios, 20 I. & N. Dec. 203 (BIA 1990). Second, to the extent that petitioner’s motion could be construed as a motion to reopen removal proceedings, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner’s second motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

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.
     