Case Name: Lilia HEREDIA-SANTANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-30
Citations: 231 F. App'x 544
Docket Number: No. 06-72020
Parties: Lilia HEREDIA-SANTANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 544–545

Head Matter:
Lilia HEREDIA-SANTANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72020.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 30, 2007.
Lilia Heredia-Santana, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lilia Heredia-Santana seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
The evidence Heredia-Santana 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 discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See id. at 601 (holding that if "the BIA determines that a motion to reopen proceedings in which there has already been an unreviewable discretionary determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief does not make out a prima facie case for that relief," 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from revisiting the merits).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.