Case ID: f-appx_175/html/0117-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Isidoro SANCHEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72536.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2006.
    
    Filed March 10, 2006.
    Isidoro Sanchez, Compton, CA, pro se.
    Marina Maravilla-Gonzales, Compton, CA, pro se.
    Marisol Robles-Maravilla, Compton, CA, pro se.
    Juan Manuel Robles-Maravilla, Compton, 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, Carol Federighi, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div/Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, T.G. NELSON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Respondent’s motion to dismiss in part and for summary disposition in part is granted. Respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction as to petitioners Isidoro Sanchez, Marina Maravilla Gonzalez and Juan Manuel Robles Maravilla is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).

Respondent’s motion for summary disposition as to petitioner Marisol Robles Maravilla is granted because the questions raised by her 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 as to that petitioner.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. Although it was not docketed as such or previously addressed by the court, the petition for review contained a timely request for a stay of removal. Consequently, 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 IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART. 
      
       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.