JUAN CLEMENTE-ALONSO and CECILIA SAGUILLAN-MARROQUIN 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JUAN CLEMENTE-ALONSO and
CECILIA SAGUILLAN-MARROQUIN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71079
Agency Nos. A095-198-840
A095-198-841
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Clemente-Alonso and Cecilia Saguillan-Marroquin, husband and wife
and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings.
FILED
JUL 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 10-71079
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of petitioners’ motion to
reopen based on further evidence of hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 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); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (explaining that
motion to reopen shall not be granted unless evidence is material and was not
available or discoverable at the hearing).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --