Case Name: Clemente JAVIER, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-19
Citations: 671 F. App'x 580
Docket Number: No. 14-70719
Parties: Clemente JAVIER, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
Clemente JAVIER, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-70719
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 19, 2016
Clemente Javier, Pro Se
Kathleen Kelly Volkert, Trial Attorney, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Clemente Javier, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
To the extent Javier is challenging the BIA's August 2018 order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal for failure to establish the requisite hardship, this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) ("The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.").
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Javier's motion to reopen, where the evidence submitted with the motion was not so distinct from that previously considered in the underlying denial of cancellation of removal as to constitute a new ground of hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publi- cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.