Case Name: Dolores Antonia GUARDADO-ORTEGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-25
Citations: 202 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 06-72697
Parties: Dolores Antonia GUARDADO-ORTEGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, TASHIMA and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 253–253

Head Matter:
Dolores Antonia GUARDADO-ORTEGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72697.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 18, 2006.
Filed Sept. 25, 2006.
Dolores Antonia Guardado-Ortega, Van Nuys, 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, John C. Cunningham, Esq., Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, TASHIMA and GRABER, 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 motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument because petitioner did not prove she had been in the United States continuously for 10 years as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) for cancellation of removal. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard); see also Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir.2002). 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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.