Case Name: Reynaldo Olivera RAMOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-15
Citations: 225 F. App'x 522
Docket Number: No. 05-73028
Parties: Reynaldo Olivera RAMOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 522–523

Head Matter:
Reynaldo Olivera RAMOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73028.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 15, 2007.
Wayne Spindler, Esq., Tarzana, CA, for Petitioners.
NVL-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lisa M. Arnold, Attorney, Genevieve Holm, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lead petitioner, Reynaldo Olivera Ramos, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider the BIA's prior order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider on the ground that Ramos is not an eligible class member under the Barahona-Gomez settlement agreement, because Ramos was not denied suspension of deportation case on the basis of section 309(c)(5) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, but rather due to his failure to demonstrate extreme hardship. See Barahona-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 243 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1031-33 (N.D.Cal. 2002).
Ramos' remaining contentions are without merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.