Case ID: f-appx_180/html/0735-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Princessita Talucod PAHUTAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74245.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2006.
    
    Filed May 18, 2006.
    Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Princessita Talucod Pahutan, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reopen proceedings on her application for cancellation of removal. The Board had previously affirmed an immigration judge’s determination that Petitioner failed to demonstrate the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to Petitioner’s lawful permanent resident mother.

We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s discretionary determination that Petitioner’s motion to reopen still failed to meet the evidentiary burden of establishing the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to Petitioner’s lawful permanent resident mother. Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that if the Board determines that a motion to reopen proceedings, in which there has already been an unreviewable discretionary determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief, does not make out a prima facie case for that relief, section 242(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act precludes our revisiting the merits).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       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.