Case Name: Ning LIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-12
Citations: 161 F. App'x 722
Docket Number: No. 03-72961; Agency No. A75-756-705
Parties: Ning LIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 722–722

Head Matter:
Ning LIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-72961.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 9, 2006.
Decided Jan. 12, 2006.
Jing Tan, Law Offices of Tan & Associates, Rockville, MD, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Esq., John M. McAdams, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ning Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider its prior order summarily affirming an immigration judge's decision denying asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liang's motion for reconsideration because the motion failed to identify any legal or factual errors in the underlying decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) ("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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.