Case Name: German Tello TORRES; Alejandra Lugo Lujano, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-10
Citations: 446 F. App'x 884
Docket Number: No. 08-72150
Parties: German Tello TORRES; Alejandra Lugo Lujano, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 884–884

Head Matter:
German Tello TORRES; Alejandra Lugo Lujano, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72150.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
Filed Aug. 10, 2011.
German Tello Torres, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Alejandra Lugo Lujano, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffery R. Leist, Terri Leon-Benner, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, 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
German Tello Torres and Alejandra Lugo Lujano, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that the motion to reopen's additional evidence of hardship was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of the hardship required for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600-603 (9th Cir.2006).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen based on the new evidence regarding violence in Mexico because petitioners did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97; see also Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 965-66 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.