Case Name: Ignacia Velazquez ZAMORA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-21
Citations: 214 F. App'x 695
Docket Number: No. 06-70101
Parties: Ignacia Velazquez ZAMORA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, McKEOWN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 695–696

Head Matter:
Ignacia Velazquez ZAMORA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70101.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 18, 2006.
Filed Dec. 21, 2006.
Ignacia Velazquez Zamora, San Diego, CA, pro se.
CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lyle D. Jentzer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, McKEOWN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in 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). The Immigration Judge correctly found that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because she does not have a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir.2002)
Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.
All 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.