
    Jose de Jesus Orozco GOMEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73541.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 29, 2009.
    Jose de Jesus Orozco Gomez, Luz Delia Orozco Rodriguez, Alejandra Orozco Rodriguez, Jose De Jesus Orozco Rodriguez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Manuel A. Palau, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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

Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction as to petitioners Jose de Jesus Orozco Gomez and Luz Delia Orozco Rodriguez 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).

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that the remaining petitioners have presented no evidence that they have a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA therefore correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, the remaining petitioners were ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, this petition for review is summarily denied as to the two remaining petitioners because the questions raised by this petition for review as to them are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

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