
    Saul Aguilar RODRIGUEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70429.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 4, 2007.
    
    Filed June 12, 2007.
    Saul Aguilar Rodriguez, Santa Ana, 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, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Song Park, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., 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.

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 (“BIA”) did not abuse its discretion when it denied as untimely petitioners’ motion to reopen. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

Additionally, to the extent that petitioners seek review of the BIA’s ruling that it would not grant reconsideration sua sponte, we grant respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir.2002).

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 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.
     