Case Name: Maria Irene Berumen SORIA, 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 626
Docket Number: No. 06-74360
Parties: Maria Irene Berumen SORIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 626–626

Head Matter:
Maria Irene Berumen SORIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74360.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
Filed Feb. 26, 2007.
Sarah J.M. Jones, Law Offices of Sarah J.M. Jones, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Mona Maria Yous-if, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office 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
Upon review of the record and petitioner's filings, respondent's motion for summary disposition is granted. The questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument because petitioner lacked the requisite ten years continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A) & (d)(1); United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam). 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.