Gonzalez-Martinez

Gonzalez-Martinez v. Gonzales

Good Law
165 F. App'x 545
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 27, 2006No. 05-74912; Agency Nos. A72-321-041, A95-450-129, A95-450-130California209 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*546 MEMORANDUM **

Respondent’s motion for summary disposition in part and motion to dismiss in part are granted. The motion for summary disposition is granted with regard to petitioners Jose Manuel Gonzalez-Nunez and Federico Gonzalez-Martinez because the questions raised by their 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). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied as to petitioners Jose Manuel Gonzalez-Nunez and Federico Gonzalez-Martinez.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction with regard to petitioner Maria Nunez-Galvan is granted. 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).

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 in PART and DISMISSED in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.