Fernando Miranda; Teodora Miranda 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO MIRANDA; TEODORA
MIRANDA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 08-73581
08-70491
Agency Nos. A075-758-099
A075–758-100
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Fernando Miranda and Teodora
Miranda, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
FILED
JUN 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73581 2
judge’s (“IJ”) removal order and denying their motion to remand, as well as its
order denying their subsequent motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005), and review de
novo due process claims, Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.
2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review in No. 08-
70491, and dismiss the petition for review in No. 08-73581.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the evidence of
hardship submitted with petitioners’ motion to remand was insufficient to establish
prima facie eligibility for relief. See id. at 601-02. Petitioners’ claim that the IJ
violated their due process rights by refusing to consider new hardship evidence on
remand fails in light of the BIA’s subsequent consideration of the evidence on
appeal. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
The evidence petitioners presented with their motion to reopen concerned
the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal.
See Fernandez, 439 F.3d at 602-03. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the
BIA’s determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie
case of hardship. See id. at 601.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73581 3
In No. 08-70491: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part;
DENIED in part.
In No. 08-73581: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --