Case Name: Jose Luis Velazquez GONZALEZ; 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: 2007-07-27
Citations: 235 F. App'x 521
Docket Number: No. 07-70727
Parties: Jose Luis Velazquez GONZALEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 521–522

Head Matter:
Jose Luis Velazquez GONZALEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70727.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 23, 2007.
Filed July 27, 2007.
Jose Luis Velazquez Gonzalez, El Monte, CA, pro se.
Juana Velazquez, El Monte, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., 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, Jennifer Levings, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, 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' ("BIA") order affirming an Immigration Judge's order denying petitioners Jose Luis Velazquez Gonzales and Juana Velazquez's application for cancellation of removal and denying voluntary departure.
A review of respondent's unopposed motion for summary disposition, along with the administrative record, demonstrates that there is substantial evidence to support the BIA's decision that petitioners failed to establish continuous physical presence in the United States for a period of not less than ten years as required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, respondent's 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).
Respondent's motion to dismiss this petition for review in part for lack of jurisdic tion is also granted. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of voluntary departure. Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 882, 884 (9th Cir.2005).
The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) 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.