Case Name: Jose VILLADA-CABRERA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-03
Citations: 188 F. App'x 627
Docket Number: No. 05-77010
Parties: Jose VILLADA-CABRERA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 188
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
Jose VILLADA-CABRERA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-77010.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2006.
Filed July 3, 2006.
Jose Villada-Cabrera, Inglewood, CA, pro se.
Juan Carlos Villada-Garabay, Inglewood, 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, Carol Federighi, Esq., Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, 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 in part and motion to dismiss in part are granted. Respondent's motion for summary disposition is granted with regard to petitioner Juan Carlos Villada-Garabay because the questions raised by the 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). Accordingly, the petition for review with regard to Juan Carlos Villada-Garabay is denied. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
Further, we have reviewed the opposition to the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with regard to Jose Villada-Cabrera, and we conclude that petitioner has failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with regard to petitioner Jose Villada-Cabrera is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).
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 in PART and DISMISSED 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.