Case Name: Malaquias Pinzon URIETA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-21
Citations: 260 F. App'x 976
Docket Number: No. 07-72840
Parties: Malaquias Pinzon URIETA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 260
Pages: 976–977

Head Matter:
Malaquias Pinzon URIETA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72840.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2007.
Filed Dec. 21, 2007.
Malaquias Pinzón Urieta, Arroyo Grande, CA, pro se.
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, Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., Eric W. Marsteller, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge's order denying petitioner Malaquias Pinzón Urieta's application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
A review of the administrative record demonstrates that there is substantial evi dence to support the BIA's decision that petitioner 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)(1)(A); Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, respondent's unopposed 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.