Case Name: Jorge GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-21
Citations: 167 F. App'x 692
Docket Number: No. 04-71380
Parties: Jorge GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: ’ Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 167
Pages: 692–692

Head Matter:
Jorge GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71380.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 21, 2006.
Lea Greenberger, Attorney at Law, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security; Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Barry J. Pettinato, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, John Mangum, Esq., US Attorney Office District of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for Respondent.
’ Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Gonzalez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reconsider its order summarily affirming the IJ's order denying asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, see Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Gonzalez-Gonzalez's motion to reconsider because his motion merely restated arguments already presented to the BIA on direct appeal and failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA's previous decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.