Court Opinion

ID: 8610133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 07:40:14.72202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:19.942279
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Alfredo Quinones and Veronica Maldonado seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to remand. We dismiss the petition for review.
The evidence petitioners presented with their motion to remand concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary 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).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA deprived them of due process is not color-able. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[TJraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.