Case Name: Maria Mercedes SOLIS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-16
Citations: 224 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 06-74637
Parties: Maria Mercedes SOLIS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
Maria Mercedes SOLIS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74637.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007 .
Filed March 16, 2007.
Peter J. Musser, Esq., Law Office of Peter James Musser, Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Eric W. Marsteller, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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) (stating standard). The Board of Immigration Appeals correctly sustained the Immigration Judge's determination that petitioner was removable as charged. See De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004) ("Pure questions of law raised in a petition to review a decision of the BIA are reviewed de novo."). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
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.