Case Name: Juan Jr Cabujat TEOCO and Erlinda Hiso Teoco, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-21
Citations: 713 F. App'x 563
Docket Number: No. 16-72462
Parties: Juan Jr Cabujat TEOCO and Erlinda Hiso Teoco, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 563–563

Head Matter:
Juan Jr Cabujat TEOCO and Erlinda Hiso Teoco, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-72462
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 21, 2018
Juan Jr Cabujat Teoco, Pro Se
Erlinda Hiso Teoco, Pro Se
Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Jr Cabujat Teoco and Erlinda Hiso Teoco, natives and citizens of the Philippines, 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 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 the motion to reconsider, where petitioners did not show the BIA made an error.of law or fact in its prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 ("A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.