Case ID: f-appx_231/html/0735-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Yadira Quintana SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75682.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 7, 2007.
    
    Filed May 14, 2007.
    Yadira Quintana Santos, Anahiem, 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, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, 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 an appeal dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

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). The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal on the grounds that she had failed to establish the necessary ten years physical presence where petitioner’s testimony established that she was absent from the United States for more than 90 days. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (stating that an applicant for cancellation of removal fails to maintain ten years continuous physical presence if he “has departed from the United States for any period in excess of 90 days.”); Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850 (9th Cir.2004). Further, petitioner’s contention that the ten years physical presence requirement violates due process is without merit. See Munoz v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir.2003) (“Since discretionary relief is a privilege created by Congress, denial of such relief cannot violate a substantive interest protected by the Due Process clause.”). 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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.