22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4b8,MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal. We have reviewed petitioner’s response to the court’s December 18, 2007 order to show cause and we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s decision that petitioner failed to establish continuous physical presence in the United States for a period of not less than ten years as required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hoo-ton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam). All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4d8,

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal.

We have reviewed petitioner’s response to the court’s December 18, 2007 order to show cause and we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s decision that petitioner failed to establish continuous physical presence in the United States for a period of not less than ten years as required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hoo-ton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.