
    Salvador Espindola RUIZ; Maria Guadalupe Mendoza Martinez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70570.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 23, 2007 .
    Filed July 27, 2007.
    Salvador Espindola Ruiz, Ridgecrest, CA, pro se.
    Maria Guadalupe Mendoza Martinez, Ridgecrest, 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, San Francisco, CA, Gladys M. Steffens-Guzman, Esq., M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This 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’ order affirming the denial of petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l).

Respondent’s unopposed 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) (stating standard). The record reflects that petitioners are statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because they cannot demonstrate ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004) (Agency’s factual determination of continuous physical presence reviewed for substantial evidence). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     