Case ID: f-appx_584/html/0537-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ramon Jimenez PADRON and Rosalinda Jimenez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71774.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 15, 2014.
    Garish Sarin, Esquire, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Bernard Joseph, OIL, 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 HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramon Jimenez Padrón and Rosalinda Jimenez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the evidence petitioners submitted with their motion to reopen to reapply for cancellation of removal does not establish' a prima facie case of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir.2006) (“If ... the BIA determines that a motion to reopen proceedings in which there has already been an unre-viewable discretionary determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief does not make out a prima facie case for that relief, [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes our visiting the merits.... ”).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider hardship evidence accompanying the motion to reopen is not supported by the record and is not a color-able question of law that would restore our jurisdiction. See Mendaz-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009) (“To be colorable in this context, ... the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying' petitioners’ motion to reopen to apply for asylum, withholding, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, where the evidence submitted was not new or material and reflected conditions in Mexico prior to petitioners’ removal hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

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