Case Name: Oscar Gonzalez PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-27
Citations: 165 F. App'x 541
Docket Number: No. 05-72636; Agency No. A96-344-257
Parties: Oscar Gonzalez PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 165
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
Oscar Gonzalez PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72636.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 23, 2006.
Decided Jan. 27, 2006.
Oscar Gonzalez Perez, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Se curity, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Shelley R. Goad, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, 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 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); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) (requiring showing "that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence."); Molino-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002) (denying cancellation of removal where alien lacked a qualifying relative under the statute).
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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.