Case Name: Salvador Uribe ESPINOSA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-29
Citations: 276 F. App'x 560
Docket Number: No. 05-75236
Parties: Salvador Uribe ESPINOSA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 560–561

Head Matter:
Salvador Uribe ESPINOSA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75236.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed April 29, 2008.
Salvador Uribe Espinosa, pro se.
Kristin K. Edison, Stacy S. Paddack, Kurt B. Larson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of The District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of The District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Salvador Uribe Espinosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his motion to reopen the BIA's underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal based on petitioner's failure to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. In his motion, which the BIA construed as a motion to reconsider, petitioner renewed his argument that his long-term permanent resident parents and his two United States citizen children would experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. We dismiss the petition for review.
The argument that petitioner presented in his motion to reconsider concerned the same basic hardship grounds as his application for cancellation of removal, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601-03 (9th Cir.2006). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner's challenge to the underlying removal order because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.