Case ID: f-appx_183/html/0690-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bertha Alicia Garcia DE CARDENAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70278.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2006.
    
    Filed June 9, 2006.
    Bertha Alicia Garcia De Cardenas, Océano, CA, pro se.
    M. Jocelyn Wright, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners.
    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, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This 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 of the denial of petitioners’ applications for cancellation of removal.

Respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised in the 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).

Petitioners do not dispute that they failed to meet the ten years continuous physical presence requirement to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A). Further, petitioners’ challenge to being placed in removal rather than deportation proceedings is foreclosed by Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 598-99 (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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.