Case Name: Guillermina Valencia MAGANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 195 F. App'x 623
Docket Number: No. 05-70915
Parties: Guillermina Valencia MAGANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 623–624

Head Matter:
Guillermina Valencia MAGANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70915.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed Aug. 1, 2006.
Lamar Peckham, Santa Rosa, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michelle E. Gorden, Esq., Cindy S. Ferrier, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Guillermina Valencia Magana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
The evidence Valencia Magana presented with her motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as her application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See id. at 601 (holding that if "the BIA determines that a motion to reopen proceedings in which there has already been an unreviewable discretionary determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief does not make out a prima facie case for that relief," 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I) bars this court from revisiting the merits). Moreover, to the extent the challenge is framed in constitutional terms, it fails because it is not colorable. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.