
    Jose Luis MUNOZ-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72590.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 20, 2008.
    
    Filed July 20, 2009.
    Deok J. Kim, Esquire, Law Offices of Deok J. Kim, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.
    Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Munoz-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribaria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

The evidence Munoz-Aguilar presented with his motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as his 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 (there is no jurisdiction to revisit the merits 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’).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in construing the “supplement” Munoz-Aguilar filed as a second motion to reopen, see Guzman v. INS, 318 F.3d 911, 913 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam), and denying that motion as time-barred and number-barred, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

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.
     