Case Name: J. Jose GONZALEZ GONZALEZ; Lorena Rodriguez Olvera; Jose Eduardo Gonzalez Gonzalez, a.k.a. Jose Eduardo Gonzalez Rodriguez; Juan Antonio Gonzalez Rodriguez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-19
Citations: 177 F. App'x 686
Docket Number: No. 05-77105
Parties: J. Jose GONZALEZ GONZALEZ; Lorena Rodriguez Olvera; Jose Eduardo Gonzalez Gonzalez, a.k.a. Jose Eduardo Gonzalez Rodriguez; Juan Antonio Gonzalez Rodriguez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, RYMER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 686–687

Head Matter:
J. Jose GONZALEZ GONZALEZ; Lorena Rodriguez Olvera; Jose Eduardo Gonzalez Gonzalez, a.k.a. Jose Eduardo Gonzalez Rodriguez; Juan Antonio Gonzalez Rodriguez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-77105.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 10, 2006.
Filed April 19, 2006.
J. Jose Gonzalez Gonzalez, El Monte, CA, pro se.
Lorena Rodriguez Olvera, El Monte, CA, pro se.
Jose Eduardo Gonzalez Gonzalez, El Monte, CA, pro se.
Juan Antonio Gonzalez Rodriguez, El Monte, 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, Robbin K. Blaya, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, RYMER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The Clerk shall amend the docket to include petitioner Jose Eduardo Gonzalez Gonzalez's alias, Jose Eduardo Gonzalez Rodriguez.
Respondent's motion to summarily dispose in part and dismiss in part is granted. Summary disposition is appropriate as to petitioners Jose Eduardo Gonzalez Gonzalez and Juan Antonio Gonzalez Rodriguez because their lack of qualifying relatives for cancellation of removal raises no substantial questions requiring further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Dismissal as to petitioners J. Jose Gonzalez Gonzalez and Lorena Rodriguez Olvera is appropriate because they raise no colorable constitutional claim as to the agency's discretionary determination of lack of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
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 DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED 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.