Case Name: Alejandro Gatica GONZALES, Alma Patricia Hernandez Morales, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-18
Citations: 251 F. App'x 435
Docket Number: No. 07-71380
Parties: Alejandro Gatica GONZALES, Alma Patricia Hernandez Morales, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 435–436

Head Matter:
Alejandro Gatica GONZALES, Alma Patricia Hernandez Morales, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71380.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2007.
Filed Oct. 18, 2007.
Alma Patricia Hernandez Morales, Moreno Valley, CA, pro se.
Alejandro Gatica Gonzalez, Moreno Valley, CA, pro se.
CAC-District, 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, Carol Federighi, Esq., Eric W. Marsteller, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
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). A review of the administrative record demonstrates that there is substantial evidence to support the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision that petitioners 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-Alvamdo v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.