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:T47d,MEMORANDUM ■ Clemente Javier, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review. To the extent Javier is challenging the BIA’s August 2018 order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal for failure to establish the requisite hardship, this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Javier’s motion to reopen, where the evidence submitted with the motion was not so distinct from that previously considered in the underlying denial of cancellation of removal as to constitute a new ground of hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2006). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publi- ■ cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4af,

MEMORANDUM

■ Clemente Javier, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

To the extent Javier is challenging the BIA’s August 2018 order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal for failure to establish the requisite hardship, this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Javier’s motion to reopen, where the evidence submitted with the motion was not so distinct from that previously considered in the underlying denial of cancellation of removal as to constitute a new ground of hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publi- ■ cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.