
    Renato Avelardo Rodriguez ROSALES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72804.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 23, 2006.
    
    Decided Jan. 27, 2006.
    Renato Avelardo Rodriguez Rosales, Orange, CA, pro se.
    Maribel Rodriguez Mendez, Orange, CA, pro se.
    Wendy Elizabeth Rodriguez Mendes, Orange, CA, pro se.
    Alvia Alejandra Rodriguez Mendez, Orange, CA, pro se.
    Renato Avelardo Rodriguez Mendez, Orange, CA, pro se.
    
      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, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, 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 for summary disposition is granted as to petitioners Elvia Rodriguez Mendez and Rena-to Rodriguez Mendez 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. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).

Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction as to the remaining petitioners 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).

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.

DISMISSED in part and 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.
     