Case Name: Raul CONTRERAS-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-13
Citations: 348 F. App'x 302
Docket Number: No. 08-72167
Parties: Raul CONTRERAS-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 302–303

Head Matter:
Raul CONTRERAS-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72167.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 13, 2009.
Stephanie Thorpe, Rios-Cantor, P.S. Attorneys at Law, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Raul Contreras-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen, which introduced further evidence of hardship to his United States citizen wife in that she has been diagnosed with anemia and depression. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (explaining that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction where question presented in motion to reopen is essentially the same un-reviewable discretionary issue originally decided).
Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the Board's denial of reopening forecloses petitioner's argument that the Board failed to meaningfully review and adequately analyze the evidence and issues raised in the motion. See Fernandez, 439 F.3d at 603-04.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.