Case Name: Raul GUTIERREZ-LUIS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-14
Citations: 270 F. App'x 529
Docket Number: No. 07-74833
Parties: Raul GUTIERREZ-LUIS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 270
Pages: 529–529

Head Matter:
Raul GUTIERREZ-LUIS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74833.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2008.
Filed March 14, 2008.
Raul Gutierrez-Luis, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Rebecca Anne Niburg, Richard M. Evans, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, NVL-District Counsel, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondent.
Before: T.G. NELSON, TASHIMA and BYBEE, 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 affirming an Immigration Judge's denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal.
We have reviewed petitioner's response to the court's December 18, 2007 order to show cause and we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the BIA's decision that petitioner 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, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hoo-ton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) 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.