Case Name: Raul Garcia MALDONADO; 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 416
Docket Number: No. 07-71406
Parties: Raul Garcia MALDONADO; 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: 416–418

Head Matter:
Raul Garcia MALDONADO; et al., Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71406.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2007.
Filed Oct. 18, 2007.
Raul Garcia Maldonado, Lake Elsinore, CA, pro se.
Leticia Santos Zacarías, Lake Elsinore, CA, pro se.
Dulce Leticia Garcia Santos, Lake Elsinore, CA, pro se.
Raul Ricardo Garcia Santos, Lake Elsinore, CA, pro se.
CAC-District, 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, John G. Amaya, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
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
On July 9, 2007, the court dismissed this petition for review for failure to file a response to the court's order to show cause. Petitioners have filed a motion to reinstate. The motion to reinstate is granted. The court has also received petitioners' response to the order to show cause. The Clerk shall file the response received July 25, 2007.
Respondent's motion to file late a motion to dismiss this petition for review and an opposition to the motion for stay of removal is granted. Respondent's motion to dismiss is construed as a motion to dismiss in part and motion for summary disposition in part.
A review of the response to the court's May 18, 2007 order to show cause, and the administrative record, demonstrates that petitioner Raul Ricardo Garcia Santos has presented no evidence that he has a qualifying relative as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(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, petitioner Raul Ricardo Garcia Santos was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary disposition with regard to petitioner Raul Ricardo Garcia Santos 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).
We have reviewed the response to the court's May 18, 2007 order to show cause with regard to petitioners Raul Garcia Maldonado, Leticia Santos Zacarías, and Dulce Leticia Garcia Santos, and we conclude that petitioners have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss this petition for review with regard to petitioners Raul Garcia Maldonado, Leticia Santos Zacarías, and Dulce Leticia Garcia Santos for lack of jurisdiction is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).
All 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 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.