Case Name: Edwin Ang DE JESUS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-23
Citations: 275 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 07-74291
Parties: Edwin Ang DE JESUS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
Edwin Ang DE JESUS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74291.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 15, 2008.
Filed April 23, 2008.
Joubin Nasseri, Esq., Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, 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, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, FISHER and PAEZ, 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 from the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of a motion to reopen.
Respondent's motion to dismiss is construed as a motion for summary disposition. So construed, the motion 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). A review of the administrative record demonstrates that petitioner presented no evidence in his motion to reopen that his daughter is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Petitioner therefore failed to show that he has a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen because the BIA correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate. The motion for stay of voluntary departure, filed after the departure period had expired, is denied. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.