Case Name: Elvia Zuniga ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-27
Citations: 320 F. App'x 685
Docket Number: No. 07-74446
Parties: Elvia Zuniga ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 685–685

Head Matter:
Elvia Zuniga ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74446.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 27, 2009.
Elvia Zuniga Espinoza, Rialto, CA, pro se.
Ashley B. Han, Esquire, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Elvia Zuniga Espinoza seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen, which introduced further evidence of hardship to her United States citizen children. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) ("Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) . bars jurisdiction where the question presented is essentially the same discretionary issue originally decided").
Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of reopening forecloses petitioner's argument that the BIA denied her due process by failing to meaningfully review and analyze the issues raised in the motion. See Fernandez, 439 F.3d at 603-04; Tovar-Landin v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1164, 1167 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that cancellation is a discretionary form of relief in which a petitioner has no due process rights regarding the denial thereof).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.