Opinion
No. 06-71714.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed February 26, 2007.
Michael J. Hernandez, Esq., Law Offices of Ronzio Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A79-534-939, A79-534-940.
Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
This is a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying an application for cancellation of removal filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
Respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction is granted in part as to petitioner Maria Alcala Sanchez, agency no. 79-534-939. 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).
We deny the petition as to petitioner Brenda Alcala, agency no. 79-534-940, because the record demonstrates that this petitioner lacked a qualifying relative, and therefore, the BIA correctly concluded this petitioner was not eligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2002).
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.