
    Juan Luis CASTILLO-CASTILLO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70797.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 4, 2007 .
    Filed June 12, 2007.
    Juan Luis Castillo-Castillo, El Monte, CA, pro se.
    
      Fabiola Flores-Rodriguez, El Monte, 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, Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Terri Leon Benner, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This 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 petitioners’ motion to reopen removal proceedings.

The regulations provide that a party “may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings.... ” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ third motion to reopen. See id.; Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004).

Accordingly, 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).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) 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.
     