22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T428,MEMORANDUM Julian Gonzalez-Ramirez and Maria Guadalupe Lupercio-Luna, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen immigration pro ceedings. We dismiss the petition for review. The evidence petitioners presented with their motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See id. at 601 . Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that petitioners did not make out a prima facie case of hardship forecloses their contention that the BIA violated due process. See id. at 603-04 . PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T45a,

MEMORANDUM

Julian Gonzalez-Ramirez and Maria Guadalupe Lupercio-Luna, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen immigration pro ceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

The evidence petitioners presented with their motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See id. at 601 .

Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that petitioners did not make out a prima facie case of hardship forecloses their contention that the BIA violated due process. See id. at 603-04 .

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.