Case ID: f-appx_278/html/0764-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Lourdes Gomez PALACIOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71805.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 12, 2008.
    
    Filed May 15, 2008.
    Maria Lourdes Gomez Palacios, pro se.
    Miriam Montserrat Gomez Palacios, pro se.
    CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, W. Manning Evans, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The 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 Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing petitioners’ appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal.

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that there is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s decision that petitioners failed to establish continuous physical presence in the United States for a period of not less than ten years as required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004).

A further review of the record reflects that the constitutional arguments raised by the petitioners in their opening brief are not colorable. Specifically, this court has previously held that the physical presence requirement does not violate due process. See Padilla-Padilla v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir.2006).

In addition, petitioners are unable to demonstrate that the immigration judge’s denial of their request for a continuance violated due process, because the denial did not prejudice petitioners’ cancellation application. See Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1394-95 (9th Cir.1985).

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).

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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.