Case ID: f-appx_198/html/0674-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alejandro Chacon VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-76345.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 21, 2006.
    
    Filed Aug. 25, 2006.
    Alejandro Chacon Vazquez, Sylmar, CA, pro se.
    District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Edward C. Durant, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alejandro Chacon Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for preview of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider its prior decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review.

The BIA was within its discretion in denying Chacon Vazquez’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc); see also Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002) (holding the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act special rule cancellation does not violate equal protection).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.