Case Name: Mario Alberto INIESTA-MUNDRAGON; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-26
Citations: 305 F. App'x 386
Docket Number: No. 06-74070
Parties: Mario Alberto INIESTA-MUNDRAGON; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 386–387

Head Matter:
Mario Alberto INIESTA-MUNDRAGON; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74070.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dee. 17, 2008.
Filed Dec. 26, 2008.
Mario Alberto Iniesta-Mundragon, Compton, CA, pro se.
Raquel Ramirez Segura, Compton, CA, pro se.
CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Stacy S. Paddack, Esquire, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mario Alberto Iniesta-Mundragon and Raquel Ramirez Asegura, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of their motion to reopen, which the BIA construed as a motion for reconsideration, challenging the underlying denial of them application for cancellation of removal due to petitioners' failure to establish the requisite hardship to their qualifying relatives.
The evidence that petitioners presented with their motion for reconsideration concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.