Case Name: Mario Montiel MARTINEZ; 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: 2007-09-17
Citations: 243 F. App'x 321
Docket Number: No. 07-71885
Parties: Mario Montiel MARTINEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 243
Pages: 321–322

Head Matter:
Mario Montiel MARTINEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71885.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2007 .
Filed Sept. 17, 2007.
Wayne Spindler, Esq., Tarzana, CA, for Petitioners.
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., Mona Maria Yousif, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, 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 the Board of Immigration Appeals' order adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge's order denying petitioners application for cancellation of removal.
A review of the administrative record demonstrates that petitioners stipulated at their merits hearing that they lacked a qualifying relative as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2002). The BIA therefore correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, petitioners were ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, respondent's opposed 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).
To the extent petitioners now raise claims that they did not present to the Board of Immigration Appeals, this petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We lack jurisdiction to consider unexhausted claims that could have been corrected by the Board of Immigration Appeals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
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.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.