Opinion
No. 08-74449.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 26, 2010.
Linnette Marie Clark, Esquire, Law Office of Linnette Tano Clark, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Manuel Palau, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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 Home* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2). land Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A097-354-953.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Alejandro M. Contreras Wiltron, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Contreras Wiltron's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's July 25, 2008, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).