Case Name: Zenon Flores MARTINEZ; Dolores Flores, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-26
Citations: 271 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 04-72808
Parties: Zenon Flores MARTINEZ; Dolores Flores, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
Zenon Flores MARTINEZ; Dolores Flores, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-72808.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 26, 2008.
Zenon Flores Martinez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Dolores Flores, Los Angeles, CA, pro se. Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Zenon Flores Martinez and Dolores Flores, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying them motion to reconsider its previous order affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying their application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying the petitioners' motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior order affirming the IJ's decision. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.