Case Name: Julio Ensastiga ALEJO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-21
Citations: 190 F. App'x 563
Docket Number: No. 05-76302
Parties: Julio Ensastiga ALEJO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 190
Pages: 563–563

Head Matter:
Julio Ensastiga ALEJO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76302.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2006.
Decided July 21, 2006.
Julio Ensastiga Alejo, Rosemead, 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, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This 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 an order denying petitioner's application for cancellation of removal for lack of a qualifying relative. Petitioner's argument raised in his opening brief that the qualifying relative requirement for cancellation of removal violates equal protection lacks merit. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001)(" '[LJine-drawing' decisions made by Congress or the President in the context of immigration and naturalization must be upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate government purpose."); Molino-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that petitioner who failed to show evidence of qualifying relative was ineligible for cancellation of removal). Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary affirmance is granted. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard for summary disposition).
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.