
    Santos Armando Mazariegos REYES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70786.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2007 .
    Filed March 16, 2007.
    Santos Armando Mazariegos Reyes, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Rosenda R. Mazariegos, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Esvin Manolo Mazariegos, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Yolanda Anabela Mazariegos, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Veronica Consuelo Mazariegos, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Norma Corina Mazariegos, Los Angeles, 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, Genevieve Holm, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

We have reviewed the opening brief and we conclude that petitioners have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review as to Santos Armando Mazariegos Reyes and Rosenda Mazariegos. See 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 as to Santos Armando Mazariegos Reyes and Rosenda Mazariegos 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).

Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review as to Esvin Manolo Mazariegos, Yolanda Anabela Mazariegos, Veronica Consuelo Mazariegos and Norma Corina Mazariegos 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 Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal because petitioners have no qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal, and this court has upheld the constitutionality of the requirement that applicants seeking cancellation of removal must have a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D); Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2003); Munoz v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, this petition for review as to Esvin Manolo Mazariegos, Yolanda Anabela Mazariegos, Veronica Consuelo Mazariegos and Norma Corina Mazariegos is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     