Case Name: Jose Arturo Campos MENDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-13
Citations: 348 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 08-72473
Parties: Jose Arturo Campos MENDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
Jose Arturo Campos MENDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72473.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 13, 2009.
Jose Arturo Campos Mendez, Amalia Campos, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioners.
OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, NVL-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Arturo Campos Mendez and Amalia Campos, natives and citizens of Guatemala and Mexico, respectively, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of their application for cancellation of removal based on their failure to establish the requisite hardship to their United States citizen children. Petitioners also challenge the BIA's denial of their motion to remand to the immigration judge.
We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA's nonreviewable discretionary determination that there was insufficient evidence to establish the requisite hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601-03 (9th Cir.2006). In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners' request to remand based on its determination that petitioners did not present any previously unavailable evidence of hardship. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.