Ratibhan

MEMORANDUM ***

We review denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion. Arrozal v. INS, 159 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir.1998). Our review is limited to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision and the basis upon which it relied. Martinez-Zelaya v. INS, 841 F.2d 294, 296 (9th Cir.1988). We have jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of motions to reopen to the extent that the underlying deportation order was based on grounds over which we do have jurisdiction. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir.2002).

Ratibhan was found by the BIA to lack good moral character because she lied to the INS and was ineligible for suspension of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (f)(6). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1997). The determination of Ratibhan’s moral character was not discretionary and may be reviewed. Id. at 1152 . The underlying deportation order was also based on Ratibhan’s failure to establish extreme hardship. We do not have jurisdiction to review that ground for Rathiban’s deportation order. Kalaw, 133 F.3d at 1152 . We also have jurisdiction to re *329 view Ratibhan’s allegations that she was a victim of fraud and received…