Case ID: f-appx_194/html/0451-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alejandro ESPINO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-77187.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Decided July 31, 2006.
    Carlos Vellanoweth, Esq., Vellanoweth & Gehart, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alejandro Espino and Margarita Espino Perez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings.

The evidence petitioners presented with their motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See id. at 601. Furthermore, we reject petitioners’ contention that the Board erred in failing to adequately explain its reasons for denying the motion to reopen. See id. at 604.

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.