Case Name: Francisco QUEZADA-TORRES; 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: 2006-06-09
Citations: 183 F. App'x 686
Docket Number: No. 05-76163
Parties: Francisco QUEZADA-TORRES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 183
Pages: 686–687

Head Matter:
Francisco QUEZADA-TORRES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76163.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2006.
Filed June 9, 2006.
Francisco Quezada-Torres, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Maria Dolores Aguirre-Cervantes, Los Angeles, 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, Regina Byrd, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The court has received and reviewed the response to the motion for summary disposition and the opening brief. A review of the record demonstrates that petitioners did not provide evidence at their removal hearing or appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals that they were statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that because petitioner provided no evidence that his mother was a lawful permanent resident, he was not eligible for cancellation). A motion to reopen is the proper procedural mechanism to provide information to the immigration agency that was not available at the time of the removal hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); Azarte v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1278, 1283 (9th Cir.2005).
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. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
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.