Martin Gutierrez challenges the order striking his petition for reimbursement of attorney’s fees under the Hyde Amendment. The district court struck the petition because Gutierrez’s counsel failed to include in it his federal-identification num *458 ber, in accordance with Southern District of Texas Local Civil Rule 11.3A(4). Gutierrez contends the district court should have waived application of the local rule in the interest of justice. (Gutierrez filed a corrected petition after the first petition was denied, but this corrected petition was denied as untimely. He does not challenge that ruling.)

A district court’s application of local rules is reviewed for abuse of discretion. E.g., Victor F. v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist., 793 F.2d 633, 635 (5th Cir. 1986). Absent “impelling reasons”, local rules should not be ignored. Id. Gutierrez offers no justifiable reason — much less an impelling one — for not applying the local rules in this instance. Accordingly, Gutierrez has not shown that striking the petition was an inappropriate exercise of the court’s discretion. See id. at 636.

AFFIRMED.