Case ID: f-appx_318/html/0518-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luis Miguel ROMERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73976.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 23, 2009.
    
    Filed March 9, 2009.
    Luis Miguel Romero, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jeffrey Lawrence Menkin, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and GOULD, 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 affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal.

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that petitioner did not have a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal because his 23-year-old United States citizen son did not qualify as a “child” as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1). The BIA correctly concluded that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, we deny this petition for review because the questions raised 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.