
    Aida Irene Jiminez MUNOZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72459.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 11, 2006.
    
    Filed Oct. 17, 2006.
    Aida Irene Jiminez Munoz, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
    
      Benjamin Jiminez Munoz, Long Beach, 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, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Saul E. Greenstein, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The Clerk shall file petitioners’ opposition to the motion to dismiss, received September 25, 2006.

We have reviewed the opposition to the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, and we conclude that petitioner Aida Irene Jimenez Muñoz has failed to raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over her petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction is granted with respect to petitioner Aida Irene Jimenez Muñoz. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2003).

We conclude that summary disposition is appropriate with respect to petitioner Benjamin Jimenez Muñoz because the questions raised by this petition for review with respect to him 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). The agency granted petitioner Benjamin Jimenez Muñoz the only relief he requested, voluntary departure. Accordingly, this petition for review is denied with respect to petitioner Benjamin Jimenez Muñoz.

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.

All other pending motions are denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. 
      
       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.
     