
    Blanca Estela CAMPOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73269.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
    
    Filed Sept. 27, 2007.
    Blanca Estela Campos, La Puente, CA, pro se.
    David Esteban Campos-Vega, La Puente, CA, pro se.
    
      CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Blanca Estela Campos and David Esteban Campos-Vega, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition for review.

The evidence petitioners presented with this 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 was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See id. at 601 (holding that 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,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)® bars this court from revisiting the merits). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       •p¡1js disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     