Julian Gonzalez-Ramirez; Maria Guadalupe Lupercio- Luna v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIAN GONZALEZ-RAMIREZ;
MARIA GUADALUPE LUPERCIO-
LUNA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74809
Agency Nos. A095-309-051
A095-309-050
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Julian Gonzalez-Ramirez and Maria Guadalupe Lupercio-Luna, husband and
wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of
FILED
FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KS/Research 07-74809 2
Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen immigration
proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
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. Gonzalez, 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.
Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination
that petitioners did not make out a prima facie case of hardship forecloses their
contention that the BIA violated due process. See id. at 603-04.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --