Case ID: f-appx_272/html/0560-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Adrian Guerrero SAAVEDRA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71286.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2008.
    
    Filed March 27, 2008.
    Jose Adrian Guerrero Saavedra, Teme-cula, CA, pro se.
    Marina Guerrero, Temecula, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District, 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, Donald A. Couvillon, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Adrian Guerrero Saavedra and Marina Guerrero, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their motion to reconsider or reopen the underlying denial of their application for cancellation of removal, based on petitioners’ failure to establish extreme or exceptional unusual hardship to their three United States citizen children.

We review the BIA’s order denying the motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision affirming the immigration judge’s order denying cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen where petitioner failed to present new evidence of hardship.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Petitioners’ motion for this court to accept a. late and defective reply brief is granted. The reply brief, received by this court on December 31, 2007, is ordered filed.