Peraza-Penuelas

*1000 MEMORANDUM *

Generally, an immigration judge’s discretionary hardship determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l) is not reviewable by this court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(i). However, Petitioner’s motion to reopen involves 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(6)(A)(i), the provision relied upon by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as the basis for removability. Because § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) “does not preclude [a panel’s] review of the discretionary aspects of the BIA’s denial of [Petitioner’s] motion to reopen,” Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 520, 527 (9th Cir.2004), we retain jurisdiction over Petitioner’s motion to reopen.

Petitioner presented new evidence of her son’s hyperactivity disorder and new evidence of her parents’ relocation to the United States. That evidence is not “inherently unbelievable,” Limsico v. INS, 951 F.2d 210, 213 (9th Cir.1991), and has a direct effect on Petitioner’s hardship claim, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l) (recognizing “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” requirement for cancellation of removal eligibility). Because the BIA’s brief order denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen appears to misinterpret and/or misapply Petitioner’s new…