Case ID: f-appx_190/html/0560-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gerardo Daniel SANDOVAL-VILLEGAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70661.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2006.
    
    Decided July 21, 2006.
    Gerardo Daniel Sandoval-Villegas, Riverside, 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, Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The court has received and reviewed petitioner’s response to the motion to dismiss. A review of the record demonstrates that petitioner did not provide evidence at his removal hearing or appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals that he was statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D); Molinar-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1090-1091 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that because petitioner provided no evidence that his mother was a lawful permanent resident, he was not eligible for cancellation).

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). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

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.