Case ID: f-appx_546/html/0703-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin Rafael Fonseca ROJAS; Nancy E. Fonseca, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72246.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Nov. 29, 2013.
    Martin Rafael Fonseca Rojas, pro se.
    Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Rafael Fonseca Rojas and Nancy E. Fonseca, natives and citizens of Peru, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider because petitioners failed to identify any error of fact or law in the underlying decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (The BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.”).

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