Bolanos-Garzon v. Gonzales , 229 F. App'x 668 ( 2007 )

MEMORANDUM ^**

Manuel Bolanos-Garzon seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s order denying Bolanos-Garzon’s application for cancellation of removal and denying his motion to remand. We dismiss the petition for review.

The new evidence Bolanos-Garzon presented with his motion to remand concerned the same basic hardship grounds as his application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-603 (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); see also Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 365, 382 (9th Cir.2003) (motions to remand are treated like motions to reopen).

Bolanos-Garzon’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by disregarding his evidence of hardship does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[Traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

We do not consider Bolanos-Garzon’s contention regarding moral character because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.