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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)
Petra Lumbrano Tabares, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., 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, Anthony C. Payne, Esq., DOJ--U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A97-356-349.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, GOODWIN and RAWLINSON, 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.
This is a petition for review of an order denying petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. A review of the record shows the petitioner does not have a qualifying relative for the purpose of obtaining cancellation of removal. Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary disposition is granted, see United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard for summary disposition), and this petition for review is denied. 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).
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) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004); El Himri v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.