Case Name: Omar Paredes ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-21
Citations: 186 F. App'x 784
Docket Number: No. 05-70836
Parties: Omar Paredes ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 784–785

Head Matter:
Omar Paredes ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70836.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2006.
Filed June 21, 2006.
Peter L. Ashman, Esq., Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
NVL-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John S. Hogan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Omar Paredes Espinoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on new evidence of hardship to his United States citizen son. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that the evidence Paredes Espinoza submitted with his motion to reopen would not alter its prior discretionary determination that he failed to establish the requisite hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (finding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen where "the only question presented is whether the new evidence altered the prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the hardship standard.") (Internal quotations omitted).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.