Case ID: f-appx_272/html/0562-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mateo Arellano RESENDIZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70527.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2008.
    
    Filed March 27, 2008.
    Mateo Arellano Resendiz, Norwalk, CA, pro se.
    Stacy S. Paddack, Kurt B. Larson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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

Mateo Arellano Resendiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen the BIA’s underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal based on petitioner’s failure to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. In his motion to reopen, petitioner renewed his argument that his qualifying relatives would experience the requisite hardship, but failed to present new evidence of hardship.

The evidence that petitioner presented with his motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as his application for cancellation of removal, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a pri-ma 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.