Case Name: Ramona SANCHEZ-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-12
Citations: 234 F. App'x 537
Docket Number: No. 07-70183
Parties: Ramona SANCHEZ-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 537–538

Head Matter:
Ramona SANCHEZ-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70183.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 4, 2007.
Filed June 12, 2007.
Robin Chandler Carr, Esq., Law Offices of Robin Carr, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Stacey I. Young, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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) (stating standard). The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's application for cancellation of removal for failure to demonstrate 10 years continued physical presence in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that an expedited removal order interrupts an alien's continuous physical presence in the United States for purposes of cancellation of removal). 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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.