Emilsa Valenzuela GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent, 255 F. App'x 150

MEMORANDUM This is a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) May 16, 2007 order dismissing petitioner’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her motions to reopen removal proceedings, which had been conducted in absentia. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review. Petitioner was ordered removed in absentia on August 5, 1998. She did not file her first motion to reopen until June 20, 2006.

After the IJ denied that motion, petitioner filed a second motion to reopen on November 13, 2006, which the IJ also denied. Because she was ordered removed in absentia, petitioner must establish that her motions to reopen met either the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) or the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(h). See Matter of M-S-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349 (BIA 1998).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner had not established either that her failure to appear at her August 5, 1998 removal hearing was caused by exceptional circumstances or that she lacked notice of the hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(h). Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner’s motion to reopen to apply for new relief, filed nearly 8 years after she was ordered removed in absentia, was not timely filed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). 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) (stating standard). 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.