Case Name: Ruben TORRES-SANTANA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-17
Citations: 96 F. App'x 547
Docket Number: No. 03-71153
Parties: Ruben TORRES-SANTANA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 547–548

Head Matter:
Ruben TORRES-SANTANA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71153.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2004.
Decided May 17, 2004.
Carlos Vellanoweth, Esq., John Wolfgang Gehart, Vellanoweth & Gehart, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., Efthimia S. Pilitsis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ruben Torres-Santana and Maria Torres, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying them motion to reopen removal proceedings. Petitioners sought to reopen on the ground that there were new circumstances demonstrating exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying family members, as required for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, where the motion did not challenge the immigration judge's pri- or determination that petitioners failed to satisfy the threshold requirement for cancellation of removal: ten-years continuous physical presence in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A) (continuous presence requirement); Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) (reviewing BIA's denial of motion to reopen for abuse of discretion).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.