NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
EDUARDO COLIMA-CASILLAS and No. 09-72814
CARMEN COLIMA,
Agency Nos. A075-718-577
Petitioners, A075-718-578
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Eduardo Colima-Casillas and Carmen Colima, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order
*
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).
denying their motion to 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.
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of petitioners’ motion to
reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for relief, to the extent the
motion introduced further evidence of the same basic hardship to petitioners’
United States citizen son. 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).
Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review this determination forecloses
petitioners’ argument that the Board denied them due process by failing to explain
adequately its reasons for denying the motion to reopen. See id. at 603-04.
Petitioners’ contention that the agency failed to adhere to its own
administrative standards by failing to grant cancellation of removal does not raise a
colorable due process claim. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930
(9th Cir. 2005).
The Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that new evidence of
the family’s various medical conditions was insufficient to warrant reopening. See
Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that Board’s denial
2
of motion to reopen shall be reversed only if “arbitary, irrational or contrary to
law”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3