Case Name: Fernando RUIZ-VILLAFANA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-24
Citations: 286 F. App'x 438
Docket Number: No. 08-70088
Parties: Fernando RUIZ-VILLAFANA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
Fernando RUIZ-VILLAFANA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70088.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2008.
Filed July 24, 2008.
Brenda Diaz, Phung, Miyamoto & Diaz, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regan Hildebrand, Oil, Jennifer L. Lightbody, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, LEAVY and IKUTA, 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 of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming the denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal.
The BIA found petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) was for a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)®.
Petitioner does not dispute that he has been convicted under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) for willful infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant, or that his conviction constitutes a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)®. The BIA correctly determined that petitioner's only argument on appeal is foreclosed by Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649, 652 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, respondent's unopposed 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.