Case Name: Jose Alfredo SUAREZ MANZO; Adelfa Aguirre, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-12
Citations: 176 F. App'x 798
Docket Number: No. 04-75273
Parties: Jose Alfredo SUAREZ MANZO; Adelfa Aguirre, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 798–799

Head Matter:
Jose Alfredo SUAREZ MANZO; Adelfa Aguirre, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75273.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2006.
Decided April 12, 2006.
Jose Alfredo Suarez Manzo, Woodburn, OR, pro se.
CA-District Counsel, Esq. Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John R. Cunningham, Esq., Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., John S. Hogan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit. Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, MCKEOWN and PAEZ, 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 Alfredo Suarez Manzo and his wife, Adelfa Aguirre, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
Petitioners' motion to reopen contained evidence concerning the same hardship ground, their daughter's medical condition, as their application for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of the motion because the question presented was "essentially the same discretionary issue originally decided." Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600-01 (9th Cir.2006).
We do not consider Petitioners' challenge to the IJ's underlying determination that Aguirre lacked the requisite continuous physical presence, because the BIA relied solely on hardship grounds in upholding the IJ's denial of cancellation, and in any event, the instant petition for review is not timely as to the BIA's underlying order. See Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005).
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.