Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Abelardo Pinela Torres, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Esperanza Martinez Ramirez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, William C. Minick, Esq., Dimitri N. Rocha, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A96-060-533, A96-060-534.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, GRABER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
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.
Respondent's motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument because petitioners did not prove they had been in the United States continuously for 10 years as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)
Page 262.
for cancellation of removal. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). 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.