Case Name: Carlos Marquez VILLALPANDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-24
Citations: 239 F. App'x 384
Docket Number: No. 07-71287
Parties: Carlos Marquez VILLALPANDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 239
Pages: 384–385

Head Matter:
Carlos Marquez VILLALPANDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71287.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2007.
Filed Aug. 24, 2007.
Carlos Marquez Villalpando, Fontana, CA, pro se.
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, Julie M. Iversen, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This 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") order affirming an Immigration Judge's order denying petitioner's application for cancellation of removal.
We have reviewed the record and respondent's motion for summary disposition. The BIA correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, petitioner is ineligible for cancellation of removal because he failed to demonstrate the requisite ten years continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, the motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised in this petition are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 698 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal 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.