Rafael Bernal Urtiaga v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

07-73487Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 26, 2010

Full text

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).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL BERNAL URTIAGA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73487
Agency No. A095-190-491
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.
Rafael Bernal Urtiaga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
FILED
FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JTK/Research 07-73487 2
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
In his motion to reopen, Bernal Urtiaga presented evidence that his wife was
pregnant with their third child, but did not claim that the new child would suffer
hardship. The remaining evidence presented with the motion to reopen concerned
the same basic hardship grounds as Bernal Urtiaga’s application for cancellation of
removal. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary
determination that the evidence would not alter the agency’s prior discretionary
determination that Bernal Urtiaga failed to establish the requisite hardship. See
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006).
Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of
reopening forecloses Bernal Urtiaga’s contention that the BIA failed to
meaningfully review and analyze the issues raised in the motion. See id. at 603-04.
Bernal Urtiaga’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.