Case Name: Maria Janeht Rafael DEPAZ, aka Juana Raquel Depaz-Rafel, aka Maria Janeth Rafael Depaz, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-24
Citations: 668 F. App'x 320
Docket Number: No. 14-70672
Parties: Maria Janeht Rafael DEPAZ, aka Juana Raquel Depaz-Rafel, aka Maria Janeth Rafael Depaz, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 320–321

Head Matter:
Maria Janeht Rafael DEPAZ, aka Juana Raquel Depaz-Rafel, aka Maria Janeth Rafael Depaz, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-70672
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 16, 2016
Filed August 24, 2016
Maria Janeht Rafael Depaz, Los Ange-les, CA, Pro se.
Edward C. Durant, Elizabeth D. Kurlan, Trial Attorney, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, 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
Maria Janeht Rafael Depaz petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider the BIA's dismissal of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rafael Depaz's motion to reconsider where Rafael Depaz failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in a prior decision). We lack jurisdiction to consider new arguments Rafael Depaz makes that she did not raise in her motion to reconsider to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.