Case Name: Victor MARISCAL-VALLE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-07
Citations: 300 F. App'x 481
Docket Number: Nos. 06-72329, 06-74619
Parties: Victor MARISCAL-VALLE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 300
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
Victor MARISCAL-VALLE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 06-72329, 06-74619.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 7, 2008.
Murray D. Hilts, Law Offices of Murray Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
John P. Devaney, Carol Federighi, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated cases, Victor Mariscal-Valle, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immi gration Appeals' ("BIA") orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal (No. 06-72329), and denying his motion to reopen (No. 06-74619). We dismiss the petitions for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Mariseal-Valle failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). Moreover, Mariscal-Valle has not raised a color-able constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction. Id.
The evidence Mariscal-Valle presented with his motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as his application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-O3 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that the evidence would not alter the agency's prior discretionary determination that Mariscal-Valle failed to establish the requisite hardship. Id.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.