
    Hilda Leticia Rangel BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72993.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 7, 2008 .
    Filed Jan. 10, 2008.
    Hilda Leticia Rangel Bautista, Riverside, 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, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Lauren E. Fascett, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./0ffíce of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GRABER, 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 from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of a motion to reopen.

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). The regulations provide that “a party may file only one motion to reopen,” and that the motion “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen, filed more than 90 days after the final administrative decision was rendered. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

To the extent petitioner challenges the BIA’s decision declining to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and reconsider, we lack jurisdiction. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

All other pending motions are denied as moot.

The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure 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.

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