Case ID: f-appx_197/html/0616-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alonso Gustavo Velazquez HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76043.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 7, 2006.
    
    Decided Aug. 11, 2006.
    Alonso Gustavo Velazquez Hernandez, Ontario, CA, pro se.
    Candelaria Cardenas, Ontario, CA, pro se.
    Gustavo Velazquez, Ontario, 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, John D. Williams, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, and HAWKINS, 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 for lack of jurisdiction and motion for summary affirmance is granted in part and denied in part.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied.

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 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A) (requiring alien to be “physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application” to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal); 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.