Case Name: Raymund Reyes CALLEJA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-24
Citations: 467 F. App'x 567
Docket Number: No. 07-73355
Parties: Raymund Reyes CALLEJA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 567–567

Head Matter:
Raymund Reyes CALLEJA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73355.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 24, 2012.
Robert Morton, Esquire, Frank & Morton, LLP, Lisa Simone, Esquire, Frank & Simone, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Ada Elsie Bosque, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Raymund Reyes Calleja, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency acted within its discretion in denying Calleja's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the agency's prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.