Case Name: Upjeet KAUR; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-02
Citations: 314 F. App'x 962
Docket Number: Nos. 05-71717, 05-74545
Parties: Upjeet KAUR; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 962–963

Head Matter:
Upjeet KAUR; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 05-71717, 05-74545.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 2, 2009.
Martin Avila Robles, Immigration Practice Group, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
John C. Cunningham, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Upjeet Kaur, Harjeet Singh, and Gur-meet Kaur, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") orders dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's removal order and 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, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petitions for review.
Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA's February 24, 2005 order by failing to raise any contentions regarding it. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's February 24, 2005 order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.