
    Adrian ZAVALA LEMUS; Claudia Patricia Medrano Cruz; Cesar Israel Zamora Medrano, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71142.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 1, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 11, 2009.
    Arnold S. Jaffe, Law Office of Arnold S. Jaffe, Santa Barbara, CA, for Petitioners.
    Katharine Clark, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alien-spouses Claudia Patricia Medrano-Cruz and Adrian Zavala-Lemus and their adult son Cesar Israel Zamora-Medrano petition from the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision denying their motion to reopen. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and will reverse only if its decision is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition for review.

The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen. To show prejudice, an alien must show “plausible grounds for relief’ on the merits. Serrano v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir.2006). To qualify for cancellation of removal, an alien must establish, inter alia, “that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). The petitioners in this case do not establish, nor does the record support any “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” that their citizen-children face, other than the normal hardships associated with moving, such as changing schools.

Denial of the petitioners’ motion does not violate due process. See Munoz v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir.2003).

DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     