
    Aguedo J. ESCOBAR OLAIZOLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70215.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 9, 2010.
    
    Filed March 15, 2011.
    John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Joanna L. Watson, Trial, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aguedo Escobar Olaizola, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for special rule cancellation of removal. The BIA denied the underlying cancellation application based on its overall discretion, and denied the motion to reopen on the basis that petitioner failed to show that his new evidence was previously unavailable, or alternatively, that the new evidence was insufficient to change the result in the case.

Escobar Olaizola contends that the BIA abused its discretion in concluding that the new and material evidence of his continuing sobriety did not warrant granting the motion to reopen. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying discretionary denial of Escobar Olaizola’s application for cancellation relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003). The supplemental evidence that petitioner presented with his motion concerned the same grounds as the discretionary denial of the underlying application for cancellation, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600-03 (9th Cir.2006).

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