
    Miguel Alarcon CASAS; Reyna Alarcon, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70169.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2008.
    
    Filed March 24, 2008.
    Miguel Alarcon Casas, Columbus, IN, pro se.
    Reyna Alarcon, Columbus, IN, pro se.
    Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Stacy S. Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Alarcon Casas and Reyna Alar-con, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 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 them qualifying United States citizen children.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings because petitioners failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that a new decision on their cancellation of removal application was warranted. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (concluding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case if a prior adverse discretionary decision was made by the agency).

The BIA also properly determined that petitioners’ motion, construed as a motion to reconsider, was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2(b) (providing that a motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days after the date on which a final administrative decision was filed).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     