
    Cesar Arrieta RINCON; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71947.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Nov. 19, 2007.
    Cesar Arrieta Rincon, Huntington Beach, CA, pro se.
    
      Pilar Garda Rincon, Huntington 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, San Francisco, CA, Manuel A. Palau, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN and CLIFTON, 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 adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioners Cesar Arrieta Rincon and Pilar Garcia Rincon’s applications for cancellation of removal. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss in part and for summary disposition in part. Petitioners have filed an opposition to the motion.

A review of the filings and the administrative record demonstrates that there is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s decision that petitioner Pilar Garcia Rincon failed to establish continuous physical presence in the United States for a period of not less than ten years as required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted with respect to petitioner Pilar Garcia Rincon 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).

We have reviewed the opposition to the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, and we conclude that petitioner Cesar Arrieta Rincon has failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.2005); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with respect to petitioner Cesar Arrieta Rincon 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; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided'by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     