order denying petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely. 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 motion to reopen must be filed with the BIA within ninety days after the mailing of the BIA’s decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Here, petitioner’s motion was filed more than two years after mailing of the BIA’s decision. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner’s untimely motion to reconsider. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this petition for review is
holding that the criminal jurisdiction bar applies to the denials of motions to reopen holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen holding that bia denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion