
    Marco Antonio Duran AURIOLES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71207.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 7, 2006.
    
    Decided Aug. 11, 2006.
    Marco Antonio Duran Aurioles, Orange, CA, pro se.
    Maria Elsa Duran Nieves, Orange, CA, pro se.
    Victor Hugo Duran Duran, Orange, CA, pro se.
    CAC-Distriet 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, Cindy S. Ferrier, Esq., Michael P. Truman, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss this petition for review is construed as a motion to dismiss in part and a motion for summary disposition in part. So construed, respondent’s motion for summary disposition in part is granted with regard to petitioners Marco Antonio Duran Duran and Victor Hugo Duran Duran because the questions raised by this 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, this petition for review is denied with regard to petitioners Marco Antonio Duran Duran and Victor Hugo Duran Duran. See 8 USC § 1229b(b)(1)(A), (D).

Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss this petition for review in part with regard to petitioners Maria Elsa Duran Nieves and Marco Antonio Duran Aurioles for lack of jurisdiction 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 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.
     