Case Name: Juan Carlos RODRIGUEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-18
Citations: 251 F. App'x 440
Docket Number: No. 07-70741
Parties: Juan Carlos RODRIGUEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 440–443

Head Matter:
Juan Carlos RODRIGUEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70741.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2007 .
Filed Oct. 18, 2007.
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Costa Mesa, CA, pro se.
Ramona Balensuela Contreras, Costa Mesa, CA, pro se.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of petitioners' application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
We have reviewed petitioners' response to the court's March 9, 2007 order to show cause, and we conclude that petitioners have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal chaina to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review because this court has held that the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act special rule cancellation does not violate equal protection. Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002); Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the court sua sponte dismisses this petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction as to petitioners Juan Carlos Rodriguez (Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ]) and Ramona Balensuela Contreras (Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ]). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.2006); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
With respect to petitioner Juan Carlos Rodriguez Valenzuela (Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ]), the court sua sponte summarily denies this petition for review because the questions raised by this petition for review as to this petitioner 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). Petitioner Juan Carlos Rodriguez Valenzuela is ineligible for cancellation of removal because he lacks a qualifying relative under the statute. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) (requiring alien to show that "removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence"); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002) (denying cancellation of removal where alien lacked a qualifying relative under the statute).
Accordingly, this petition for review is denied as to petitioner Juan Carlos Rodriguez Valenzuela and dismissed as to petitioners Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Ramona Balensuela Contreras.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.