Case Name: Eugenio Ruiz CASTRO; Bertha Ruiz Ortega, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-27
Citations: 192 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 05-75553
Parties: Eugenio Ruiz CASTRO; Bertha Ruiz Ortega, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 192
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
Eugenio Ruiz CASTRO; Bertha Ruiz Ortega, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75553.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed July 27, 2006.
Nadeem H. Makada, Esq., Burlingame, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eugenio Ruiz Castro and his wife, Bertha Ruiz Ortega, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2. They contend that the Board erred in concluding that their new evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie showing of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative and eligibility for cancellation of removal. Respondent contends that pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) we lack jurisdiction to review the Board's decision denying the motion to reopen on the basis of a discretionary hardship determination. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir.2006). The petitioners argue that their new evidence of their daughter's newly diagnosed animal phobia was not cumulative. This evidence, however, was directed at the same basis for relief as the originally submitted evidence of the daughter's fear of animals. We therefore lack jurisdiction over the petition for review. See id. at 601-02.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.