Case Name: Jose Isabel CELESTINO-SOLIS; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-16
Citations: 303 F. App'x 536
Docket Number: No. 08-72744
Parties: Jose Isabel CELESTINO-SOLIS; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 303
Pages: 536–536

Head Matter:
Jose Isabel CELESTINO-SOLIS; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72744.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 1, 2008.
Filed Dec. 16, 2008.
Michelle Gonzalez, Esquire, Law Office of Michelle Gonzalez, Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioners.
Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The 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' ("BIA") order dismissing petitioners' appeal of the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") order denying petitioners' application for cancellation of removal.
A review of the administrative record demonstrates that petitioners conceded that their qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) died prior to their merits hearing before the IJ. Petitioners therefore do not have a qualifying relative for purposes of applying for cancellation of removal and the BIA correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, petitioners were ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, respondent's unopposed 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).
Al 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.