Case Name: Tomas Padron MIRANDA; 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 291
Docket Number: No. 08-73562
Parties: Tomas Padron MIRANDA; 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: 291–292

Head Matter:
Tomas Padron MIRANDA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73562.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 13, 2009.
John Wolfgang Gehart, Lourdes Barrera Haley, Esquire, Russell M. Jauregui, Esquire, Carlos Vellanoweth, Esquire, Elena Yampolsky, Esquire, Vellanoweth & Ge-hart, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Genevieve Holm, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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
Tomas Padrón Miranda and Maria Teresa Escoto Larios, natives and citizens of Mexico, seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board's denial of petitioners' motion to reopen, which introduced further evidence of hardship to then* United States citizen daughter. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (explaining that § 1252(a)(2)(B)® bars jurisdiction where question presented in motion to reopen is essentially the same unreviewable discretionary issue originally decided).
Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the Board's denial of reopening forecloses petitioners' argument that the Board failed to meaningfully review and analyze the issues raised in the motion. See Fernandez, 439 F.3d at 603-04; Tovar-Landin v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1164, 1167 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that cancellation is a discretionary form of relief in which a petitioner has no due process rights regarding the denial thereof).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.