FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMON JIMENEZ PADRON and No. 12-71774
ROSALINDA JIMENEZ,
Agency Nos. A079-535-925
Petitioners, A079-535-926
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Jimenez Padron and Rosalinda Jimenez, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
*
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).
reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the evidence
petitioners submitted with their motion to reopen to reapply for cancellation of
removal does not establish a prima facie case of exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir. 2006) (“If . . .
the BIA determines that a motion to reopen proceedings in which there has already
been an unreviewable discretionary determination concerning a statutory
prerequisite to relief does not make out a prima facie case for that relief, [8 U.S.C.]
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes our visiting the merits . . . .”).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider hardship evidence
accompanying the motion to reopen is not supported by the record and is not a
colorable question of law that would restore our jurisdiction. See Mendez-Castro
v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To be colorable in this context, . .
. the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen to apply for asylum, withholding, and relief under the Convention Against
2 12-71774
Torture, where the evidence submitted was not new or material and reflected
conditions in Mexico prior to petitioners’ removal hearing. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 12-71774