Case ID: f-appx_359/html/0898-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alberto Gonzalez ROSALEZ; Martha Alicia Bacilio; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70760.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 22, 2009.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, OIL, Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alberto Gonzalez Rosalez, Martha Alicia Bacilio, and their child, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand and review de novo due process claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA that the petitioners failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. See Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1027 (9th Cir.2004).

In the motion to remand, petitioners presented evidence that Martha had given birth to twins, but did not claim that the new children would suffer hardship. The remaining evidence presented with the motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence would not alter its prior discretionary determination that petitioners failed to establish the requisite hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006).

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.