
    Marisol CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71569.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 15, 2008.
    Gloria A. Goldman, Gloria A. Goldman, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, OIL, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel Phoenix, Esquire, Office of the District Director U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents.
    Before: PREGERSON, McKEOWN and N.R. SMITH, 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 dismissing petitioner’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s order denying her application for cancellation of removal.

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that petitioner is not eligible for cancellation of removal because she does not have a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted 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).

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