
    Leonel GUTIERREZ-SANCHEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73379.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Nov. 26, 2007.
    Maribel Reynoso, So. Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacy S. Paddack, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div., Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leonel Gutierrez-Sanchez and Paulina Gutierrez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of them motion to reconsider the denial of their motion to reopen them deportation proceedings.

The evidence petitioners presented in 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 was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See id. at 601 (holding that if “the BIA determines that a motion to reopen proceedings in which there has already been an unreviewable discretionary determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief does not make out a prima facie case for that relief,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from revisiting the merits).

DISMISSED. 
      
      This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     