Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0643-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan CLEMENTE-ALONSO and Cecilia Saguillan-Marroquin, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71079.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 19, 2012.
    Steve Sungsoo Chang, Esquire, Law Offices of Chang & Lim, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Theo Nickerson, Esquire, Ada Elsie Bosque, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Clemente-Alonso and Cecilia Sa-guillan-Marroquin, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings.

We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of petitioners’ motion to reopen based on further evidence of hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (explaining that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction when question presented in motion to reopen is essentially the same hardship ground originally decided); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (explaining that motion to reopen shall not be granted unless evidence is material and was not available or discoverable at the hearing).

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