Case ID: f-appx_245/html/0730-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rodrigo BARBOZA-GALINDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72943.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007 .
    Filed Aug. 23, 2007.
    David Neumeister, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodrigo Barboza-Galindo, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to reopen the BIA’s order upholding the immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal, based on his failure to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children. In the motion to reopen, petitioner presented additional evidence of his United States citizen daughter’s worsening asthma condition.

The evidence petitioner presented with his motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as his original application for cancellation of removal. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601-03 (9th Cir.2006).

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