
    Nelly HERNANDEZ SILVA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73241.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
    Nelly Hernandez Silva, Tustin, CA, pro se.
    Alex Garcia Ramirez, Tustin, CA, pro se.
    Lori Warlick, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, 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

Nelly Hernandez Silva and Alex Barcia Ramirez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reopen the underlying denial of their application for cancellation of removal based on their failure to establish the requisite hardship to their qualifying relatives.

Petitioners contend that the BIA erred in denying their motion to reopen because they are entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on changed country conditions in Mexico, and because they presented sufficient new evidence of hardship to support their claim for cancellation.

The evidence of hardship arising from the male petitioner’s diabetes and the United States citizen child’s education difficulties concerned the same basic hardship ground as their initial application for cancellation of removal. 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 Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601-03 (9th Cir.2006). To the extent that petitioners allege that conditions in Mexico constitute extreme hardship, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening based on its conclusion that the petitioners did not show that similar evidence was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir.2008). In addition, petitioners have failed to establish a basis for reopening due to their failure to provide sufficient evidence that changed country conditions in Mexico establish a prima facie case for CAT relief. See Nuru, v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir.2005).

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.
     