Case Name: Juana Flores CASTANEDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-26
Citations: 222 F. App'x 616
Docket Number: No. 06-74981
Parties: Juana Flores CASTANEDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 616–617

Head Matter:
Juana Flores CASTANEDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74981.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 .
Filed Feb. 26, 2007.
Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
CAS-Distriet 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, Lyle D. Jentzer, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, 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 opposed 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's contention that the "stop-time" rule of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) is inapplicable to her case lacks merit. See Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 935, 937 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (stating that accrual of physical presence time ends when removal proceedings are commenced through service of a notice to appear); Lagandaon v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir.2004) ('We conclude that the period of continuous presence ends on the day the Notice is served."). 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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.