Case Name: Jesus Fragoso TAPIA; Maria Josefina Sanchez Galindo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 194 F. App'x 480
Docket Number: No. 05-73804
Parties: Jesus Fragoso TAPIA; Maria Josefina Sanchez Galindo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 480–480

Head Matter:
Jesus Fragoso TAPIA; Maria Josefina Sanchez Galindo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73804.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 31, 2006.
Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christopher T. Dong, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jesus Fragoso Tapia and Maria Josefina Sanchez Galindo, husband and wife, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
The evidence Petitioners presented with their motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that the evidence would not alter its prior discretionary determination that they failed to establish the requisite hardship. See id. at 600 (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen where "the only question presented is whether [the] new evidence altered the prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the hardship standard.") (Internal quotations and brackets omitted).
Respondent's March 15, 2006 motion to dismiss the petition for review is denied as moot.
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.