NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
GABRIELA MANCIO, No. 11-72846
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-653-148
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Gabriela Mancio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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 reopen, and review de novo claims
*
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).
of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Mancio’s motion to reopen to the extent it
concerns the same basic hardship grounds as her original application for
cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.
2006) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from reviewing the
denial of a motion to reopen where “the only question presented is whether [the]
new evidence altered the prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the
petitioner] had not met the hardship standard.” (internal quotations and brackets
omitted)).
To the extent Mancio presented non-cumulative evidence of hardship to her
mother and youngest son, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion where the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate any likely impact on
the hardship determination in Mancio’s case. See id. at 600 n.6 (prima facie
eligibility for relief is demonstrated where “the evidence reveals a reasonable
likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied” (internal
quotations omitted)).
Mancio’s related due process contention fails because she cannot establish
prejudice as a result of the denial of her motion to reopen. See Lata v. INS, 204
2 11-72846
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 11-72846