Case Name: Jose Filemon Juarez GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-11
Citations: 197 F. App'x 602
Docket Number: No. 06-72004
Parties: Jose Filemon Juarez GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 197
Pages: 602–602

Head Matter:
Jose Filemon Juarez GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72004.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 7, 2006.
Decided Aug. 11, 2006.
Jose Filemon Juarez Gomez, Compton, CA, pro se.
CAC — District, 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, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and HAWKINS, 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. Summary disposition is appropriate because petitioner's lack of a qualifying relative for cancellation of removal raises no substantial questions requiring further argument. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that petitioner who failed to show evidence of qualifying relative was ineligible for cancellation of removal); United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard for summary disposition). 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.