Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8622405
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Espinoza v. Gonzales
No. 8622405 · Decided June 21, 2006
No. 8622405·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 21, 2006
Citation
No. 8622405
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Omar Paredes Espinoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on new evidence of hardship to his United States citizen son. We dismiss the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the evidence Paredes Espinoza submitted with his motion to reopen would not alter its prior discretionary determination that he failed to establish the requisite hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (finding 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 omitted). 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 ** Omar Paredes Espinoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on new evidence of hardship to his United Sta
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Omar Paredes Espinoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on new evidence of hardship to his United Sta
02We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the evidence Paredes Espinoza submitted with his motion to reopen would not alter its prior discretionary determination that he failed to establish the requisite hardship.
04§ 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 t
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Omar Paredes Espinoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on new evidence of hardship to his United Sta
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Espinoza v. Gonzales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 21, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8622405 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.