Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8623640
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Espino v. Gonzales
No. 8623640 · Decided July 31, 2006
No. 8623640·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 31, 2006
Citation
No. 8623640
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Alejandro Espino and Margarita Espino Perez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings. The evidence petitioners presented with their motion to reopen 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 . Furthermore, we reject petitioners’ contention that the Board erred in failing to adequately explain its reasons for denying the motion to reopen. See id. at 604 . PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Alejandro Espino and Margarita Espino Perez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Alejandro Espino and Margarita Espino Perez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings.
02The evidence petitioners presented with their motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal.
03We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship.
04Furthermore, we reject petitioners’ contention that the Board erred in failing to adequately explain its reasons for denying the motion to reopen.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Alejandro Espino and Margarita Espino Perez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Espino v. Gonzales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 31, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8623640 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.