
    Cecilio Salgado HERNANDEZ; Maria Elena Salgado, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75656.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007 .
    Filed April 27, 2007.
    Howard R. Davis, Esq., Davis Miller & Neumeister, Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Joanne E. Johnson, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER 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

Cecilio Salgado Hernandez and Maria Elena Salgado, husband and wife, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

The evidence 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 (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen where “the only question presented is whether [the] new evidence altered the prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the hardship standard.”) (Internal quotations and brackets omitted).

Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Petitioners did not make out a prima facie case of hardship forecloses their argument that the BIA denied them due process by failing to consider and address the entirety of the evidence they submitted with the motion to reopen. See Fernandez, 439 F.3d at 603-04 (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.
     