Amaya

Amaya v. Mukasey

Good Law
264 F. App'x 580
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 18, 2008No. 06-71840California276 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Quezada Amaya and Guadalupe Ramirez Cruz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying petitioners’ motion to reopen the underlying denial of their application for cancellation of removal, which was based on their failure to establish the requisite hardship to their qualifying United States citizen relatives.

In them motion to reopen, petitioners contended that they were able to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship based on new evidence of female petitioner’s father’s worsening eye condition and female petitioner’s worsening Bells Palsy condition.

The evidence of the female petitioner’s father’s eye condition, that 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 would not alter its prior discretionary determination that they failed to establish the requisite hardship. See id. at 600 .

Female petitioner’s evidence of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.