Case Name: Jose Covarrubias VALDIVIA; et al., Petitioners, 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 304
Docket Number: No. 08-72641
Parties: Jose Covarrubias VALDIVIA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 304–305

Head Matter:
Jose Covarrubias VALDIVIA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72641.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 13, 2009.
John E. Ricci, Law Office Of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department -of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anna Nelson, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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
Jose Covarrubias Valdivia and Ericka Tapia Ramirez, husband and wife, seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board's denial of petitioners' motion to reopen, which introduced further evidence of hardship to their United States citizen son. 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 unreviewable 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 denied failed to meaningfully review and analyze the 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.