Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8660778
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Resendiz v. Mukasey
No. 8660778 · Decided March 27, 2008
No. 8660778·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
March 27, 2008
Citation
No. 8660778
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Mateo Arellano Resendiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen the BIA’s underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal based on petitioner’s failure to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. In his motion to reopen, petitioner renewed his argument that his qualifying relatives would experience the requisite hardship, but failed to present new evidence of hardship. The evidence that petitioner presented with his motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as his application for cancellation of removal, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a pri-ma facie case of hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601-03 (9th Cir.2006). *563 PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Mateo Arellano Resendiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen the BIA’s underlying denial of his application for cancellation of remova
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Mateo Arellano Resendiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen the BIA’s underlying denial of his application for cancellation of remova
02In his motion to reopen, petitioner renewed his argument that his qualifying relatives would experience the requisite hardship, but failed to present new evidence of hardship.
03The evidence that petitioner presented with his motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as his application for cancellation of removal, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination th
04This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Mateo Arellano Resendiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen the BIA’s underlying denial of his application for cancellation of remova
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Resendiz v. Mukasey in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on March 27, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8660778 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.