Case Name: Jorge Rojas GUTIERREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-25
Citations: 202 F. App'x 275
Docket Number: No. 06-72364
Parties: Jorge Rojas GUTIERREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 275–275

Head Matter:
Jorge Rojas GUTIERREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72364.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 18, 2006.
Filed Sept. 25, 2006.
Charles E. Nichol, Esq., Law Office of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John D. Williams, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The court has reviewed petitioners' response to the court's June 2, 2006 order to show cause. The court sua sponte dismisses this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with respect to petitioners Jorge Rojas-Gutierrez and Oliva Gonzalez-Gonzalez. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)(B) (i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002). The court sua sponte summarily denies the petition for review with respect to petitioner Jorge Rojas-Gonzalez, because the agency granted him the only relief he requested, voluntary departure. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
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.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
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.