RAFAEL GONZALEZ CRUZ and MARIA ANGELICA SAUCEDO MEZA 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL GONZALEZ CRUZ and
MARIA ANGELICA SAUCEDO MEZA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72839
Agency Nos. A077-057-599
A095-176-713
MEMORANDUM*
RAFAEL GONZALEZ CRUZ and
MARIA ANGELICA SAUCEDO MEZA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70627
Agency Nos. A077-057-599
A095-176-713
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
FILED
OCT 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
Submitted October 19, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Rafael Gonzalez Cruz and Maria Angelica
Saucedo Meza, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro
se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal
from an immigration judge’s denial of their application for cancellation of removal,
as well as the Board’s denial of their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their
United States citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v.
Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009).
We likewise lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of petitioners’
motion to reopen, which introduced further evidence of hardship to their United
States citizen children. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
2006) (explaining that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction when question presented
in motion to reopen is essentially the same hardship ground originally decided).
The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen to
allow petitioners to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture, because
petitioners failed to present material evidence of changed country conditions that
was not available and could not have been presented at the previous proceeding.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); He v. Gonzalez, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.
2007) (reviewing for abuse of discretion). The generalized evidence attached to
the motion did not establish petitioners would more likely than not be tortured if
removed to Mexico. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005);
Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 2003) (requiring movant to establish
prima facie case for eligibility for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --