Carbajal v. Mukasey

MEMORANDUM ** Teresa Rios Carbajal petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigra *761 tion Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review. The evidence Rios Carbajal presented with her motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as her 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 would not alter its prior discretionary determination that she failed to establish the requisite hardship. See id. at 600 (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen where “the only question presented is whether [the] new evidence altered the prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the hardship standard.”) (Internal quotations and brackets omitted). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.