Case Name: Bernardo GALLEGOS-LOMELI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-09
Citations: 474 F. App'x 566
Docket Number: No. 10-73333
Parties: Bernardo GALLEGOS-LOMELI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 566–567

Head Matter:
Bernardo GALLEGOS-LOMELI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73333.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 9, 2012.
Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Matthew Allan Spurlock, Ada Elsie Bos-que, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bernardo Gallegos-Lomeli, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Gallegos-Lomeli's motion to reopen, because the evidence submitted with the motion concerns the' same basic hardship grounds that Gallegos-Lomeli previously relied on to support his application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601-03 (9th Cir .2006).
Gallegos-Lomeli's contentions that the BIA failed to consider the evidence he submitted and failed to explain the reasons for denying his motion are not supported by the record and do not amount to color-able constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.