Case Name: Maria Del Socorro SANTIBANEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-07
Citations: 300 F. App'x 482
Docket Number: No. 06-74257
Parties: Maria Del Socorro SANTIBANEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 300
Pages: 482–483

Head Matter:
Maria Del Socorro SANTIBANEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74257.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 7, 2008.
Maria Del Socorro Santibanez, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
CAC-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, Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., Stephen J. Flynn, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Del Socorro Santibanez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's May 12, 2006 order dismissing Santibanez's appeal because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir .2003).
The evidence Santibanez presented with her motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as her 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 determination that the evidence would not alter the agency's prior discretionary determination that Santibanez failed to establish the requisite hardship. Id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.