Case Name: Jose Sedaño RUIZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-17
Citations: 203 F. App'x 125
Docket Number: No. 06-72114
Parties: Jose Sedaño RUIZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 125–126

Head Matter:
Jose Sedaño RUIZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72114.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 11, 2006.
Filed Oct. 17, 2006.
Jose Sedaño Ruiz, Santa Maria, CA, for Petitioner.
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, Anthony C. Payne, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, 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). Petitioner is ineligible for cancellation of removal because he lacks a qualifying relative under the statute. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) (requiring alien to show that "removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence"); see also Molino-Estra-da v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002) (denying cancellation of removal where alien lacked a qualifying relative under the statute). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.