Case Name: Juan Francisco HIGAREDA-ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-25
Citations: 320 F. App'x 603
Docket Number: No. 07-73221
Parties: Juan Francisco HIGAREDA-ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 603–604

Head Matter:
Juan Francisco HIGAREDA-ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73221.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 25, 2009.
Juan Francisco Higareda-Espinoza, pro se.
Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, Stacy Stiffel Pad-dack, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, 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: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Francisco Higareda-Espinoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition for review.
The evidence Petitioner presented with his motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as his application for cancellation of removal. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA'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).
In light of our disposition, Petitioner's remaining contentions have become moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).