Case Name: Jose Isabel VELASQUEZ-MURO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-28
Citations: 424 F. App'x 700
Docket Number: No. 10-71392
Parties: Jose Isabel VELASQUEZ-MURO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 424
Pages: 700–701

Head Matter:
Jose Isabel VELASQUEZ-MURO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71392.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 28, 2011.
Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of The Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY and BYBEE, 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
Jose Isabel Velasquez-Muro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen, which introduced further evidence of hardship to his permanent resident parents and United States citizen children that did not alter the previous discretionary determination or make out a prima facie case for relief. Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (explaining that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction when question presented in motion to reopen is essentially the same hardship ground originally decided).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.